PROJECT MANAGEMENT THEORIES AND PRACTICESLECTURER ONE

OVERVIEW OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT CYCLE

1.1 IntroductionThank you for your interest in studying monitoring and evaluation of projects which is an

indispensable management function. You can call it “M & E” – it is much easier. In this lecture we will try to review a few background issues on the projects that you covered in the unit LDP 604: Project planning, design and implementation. This will give us a good foundation to discuss Project Monitoring and Evaluation.

1.2. ObjectivesAt the end of this lecture you should be able to;

1. Define a project

2. Define the project management cycle

3. Describe the major stages of the project management cycle

4. Explain the element of a project document

1.3 Definition of a projectIn the previous unit on project planning design and implementation you may realize that the term

project was defined differently by different experts. Let us single out a few definitions and try to understand them in the context of Monitoring and Evaluation.

Singh and Nyandemo (2004) define a project as an endeavor in which human, material and financial resources are organized in a novel way to undertake a unique scope of work of a given specification within constrains of cost, time and the prevailing environment, so as to achieve beneficial change defined by quantitative and qualitative objectives. On the other hand International Standard Organization (ISO) 10006 looks at the project as a unique process that consists of a set of coordinated and controlled activities with start and finish dates undertaken to achieve an objective conforming to specific requirements, including the constrains of time, cost and resources.

In the two definitions it is clear that project involves resources which include human, material and financial among others. It also involves tasks defined in terms of activities that are organized in a unique way to achieve a set of predetermined objectives. Other issues that come out clearly are the timeliness of the projects and the aspect of coordinating and controlling of activities to achieve the desired objectives. We can therefore conclude that:

Activities that comprise a project are intentionally designed to achieve certain ends in consideration of available resources and time.

Objectives therefore become the major target of each and every activity. Monitoring of the project activities is therefore very important to ensure that they are

implemented as planned.

It is important to ensure that the activities produce the intended results at the end of the project cycle.

It is also important to ascertain the changes brought to the project beneficiaries in terms of quantitative and qualitative data.

It is only when this is achieved that we can conclude that the project has fulfilled its objectives. Evaluation of projects therefore becomes not only important to projects but a part and parcel of project design.

Activity 1.41. From the two definitions Singh and Nyandemo (2004) and ISO

(2006), identify the elements that calls for monitoring and evaluation

1.5 Project cycleA project cycle is a sequence of continuous events which a project follows. The events, stages or phases can be divided into several equally valid ways depending on the executing agency or parties involved. For instance in 1970s the World Bank identified five stages in which a project undergoes namely project identification, project formulation, project appraisal, implementation and project evaluation.

This model has given rise to many variations of stages in project cycle for instance Ogula (2002) proposes five stages as reflected in fig.1 below:

Fig. 1: Project life cycle

Source: Ogula (2002) Monitoring and Evaluation of Educational Projects and Programmes. Nairobi. New Kemit Publishers

From the above demonstration of stages in project cycle it is clear that monitoring and evaluation forms a very key component. For instance in figure 1 above it is implied that at all the stages of project cycle monitoring and evaluation is required. For instance:

Problem identification

Project designMonitoring & Evaluation

Feedback

Project implementation

1). At the problem identification or project conceptualization stage one needs to undertake project needs analysis in which data is collected and evaluated to identify the needs of the communities; possible project ideas to satisfy needs identified are also evaluated and closely analyzed (filtered) to finally arrive at the indented projects. 2). Formulation of the project also involves evaluation to some extent. Project objectives formulation is a participatory activity that requires careful evaluation by all project stakeholders. Cost and benefit analysis of each and every activity is done to give the final activity that will be included in the project. The purpose is to arrive at the activities that have the highest impact in terms of fulfilling the project objectives. 3). Implementation stage involves rolling out the project activities. This calls for monitoring to ensure that the activities are implemented as planned.4). At the end of the project cycle, the terminal evaluation is done to determine the impact of the whole project to the project beneficiaries.

Take NoteWe can therefore conclude that Monitoring and Evaluation is a very important component of project design and project life cycle

1.7 Components of Project design

At this point, we need to examine the components of a project design and see how they all hinge on monitoring and evaluation. It is important to note that a well designed project should have a written document which is logical and complete. Lets us look at some of the components of a project design. The project document has the following;

Statement of project: Describe the areas that emerged during the need assessment and that the project seeks to address.

Project strategy: Explain clearly the beneficiaries of your project. Show the beneficial changes to be brought by the project. Indicate the partners/ stakeholders involved and show how the project will deliver its benefits to the intended group.

Goals/ purpose/vision: This is the ultimate objective of the project. It is the long term objective e.g. to ensure that every youth at Kwa kavoo village is self employed by 2015.

Objectives/mission: State the immediate achievement at the end of the project e.g at the end of the project 400 youth from Kwa kavoo village will have been trained on how to run their own small businesses.

Outputs: Describe the products that would result from the project activities

Activities: Show all the activities which will be undertaken to produce the desired output e.g workshops, developing training manual/ modules.

Inputs: Give a full range of the resources needed (human, financial, technical etc) to carry out the activities in terms of costs.

Indicators: State the end result /changes achieved at the end of a project. Indicators are shown by the objectives and outputs of a project.

1.8 SummaryWhen you view a project in many perspective the most notable aspect that one may not fail to notice is the ability of the project to produce results that can be measured and thus provide a change from one state of being to a desired state. This Lecture provided definition of a project and highlighted on project management cycle with a view of demonstrating that monitoring and evaluation is part and parcel of a project design. The lecture also elaborates on the components of the project design.

LECTURE TWOPROJECT MANAGEMENT THEORIES

Introduction A theory contributes forecasts that give precise depiction of the relationships. According to (Imenda, 2017), a theory is a set of interconnected models, which structure an orderly view of phenomena for the purpose of enlightening or forecasting. Additionally, it is like an outline, a guide for model which the theory is pertinent, a set of associations among the variables, and precise predictive assertions. According to Dorin, Demmin and Gabel, (1990) a theory provides a general explanation for observations that are made over time. A theory attempts to explain and predict behaviour based on observations, and conclusions are based on the data that is systematically collected, analysed and interpreted. The theories are based on conclusions and observations that have stood the test of time and conditions and thus are established beyond all doubt. This notwithstanding, a theory may be modified depending on new observations Theories seldom have to be thrown out completely if thoroughly tested but sometimes a theory may be widely accepted for a long time and later disapproved.

The underlying theory in the present doctrine of project management is analyzed based on the Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide) of PMI (Duncan 1996). Of course, there are certainly other formulations about the primary characteristics of project management, and it can be argued what the true doctrine of project management should be; however, for the purposes of this paper, the PMBOK Guide provides for a useful summary of that doctrine. Having then the theoretical foundation of project management at hand, we investigate whether it is the best available and empirically valid. We discuss the implications of this evaluation of the theory of project management. To conclude, we consider the impact of the observed deficiencies of the underlying theory of project management on the practice, profession and evolution of project management.

Theory of project management

Let us first clarify the basic issues. What are the constituents of a theory? What do we require from a theory of project management? Why do we need a theory? A theory consists primarily from concepts and causal relationships that relate these concepts (Whetten 1989). It is possible to broadly characterize a target theory of production/operations management (Koskela 2000). This characterization applies also for project management, being a special type of production/operations management. A theory of project management should be prescriptive: it should reveal how action contributes to the goals set to it. On the most general level, there are three possible actions: design of the systems employed in designing and making; control of those systems in order to realize the production intended; improvement of those systems. Project management, and indeed all production, has three kinds of goal. Firstly, the goal of getting intended products produced in general. Secondly, there are internal goals, such as cost minimization and level of utilization. Thirdly, there are external goals related to the needs of the customer, like quality, dependability and flexibility.

An explicit theory of project management would serve various functions. In prior research, the following roles of a theory have been pinpointed (Koskela 2000):

• A theory provides an explanation of observed behavior, and contributes thus to understanding. A theory provides a prediction of future behavior.

• On the basis of the theory, tools for analyzing, designing and controlling can be built.

• A theory, when shared, provides a common language or framework, through which the co-operation of people in collective undertakings, like project, firm, etc., is facilitated and enabled.

• A theory gives direction in pinpointing the sources of further progress.

• When explicit, testing the validity of the theory in practice leads to learning.

• Innovative practices can be transferred to other settings by first abstracting a theory from that practice and then applying it in target conditions.

• A theory can be seen as a condensed piece of knowledge: it empowers novices to do the things that formerly only experts could do. It is thus instrumental in teaching.

What is the underlying theory of project management?Based on the definition of a theory we crystallize the prescriptions (for action) and explicit principles of project management regarding a specific aspect or part of the project management process. Secondly, we compare this crystallization to the principles and prescriptions of candidate theories and identify a corresponding theory. The PMBOK Guide states that projects are composed of two kinds of processes: project management processes and product-oriented processes (which specify and create the project product). Project management processes are further divided into initiating, planning, execution, controlling and closing processes. Let us first concentrate on the theory of the project proper (product-oriented processes), and then on the theory of management, covering the core processes of planning, execution and controlling.

Theory of project

In the following, we take the crystallization of Turner (1993) (also referenced in the PMBOK Guide) as a starting point for a reconstruction of the theory of project. According to Turner, scope management is the raison d’être of project management. He defines the purpose of scope management as follows: (1) an adequate or sufficient amount of work is done; (2) unnecessary work is not done; (3) the work that is done delivers the stated business purpose. The scope is defined through the work breakdown structure (WBS).

What does Turner say, from a theoretical point of view? Firstly, he (implicitly) claims that project management is about managing work; this is the conceptualization. Secondly, he claims that work can be managed by decomposing the total work effort into smaller chunks of work, which are called activities and tasks in the PMBOK Guide. Thirdly, he claims that this conceptualization and the principle of decomposition serve three essential purposes of project management. Even if not mentioned by Turner, there is an important, but implicit assumption associated with decomposition, namely that tasks are related if at all by sequential dependence.

Indeed, a review of the PMBOK Guide reveals that activities and tasks are the unit of analysis in the core processes of project management, like scope management, time management, and cost management, and that their management and control is centralized. This is also supported by the description of Morris of the classic - and still current - project management approach as follows (Morris 1994): .first, what needs to be done; second, who is going to do what; third, when actions are to be performed; fourth, how much is

required to be spent in total, how much has been spent so far, and how much has still to be spent. ... Central to this sequence is the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)...

When we compare this crystallization of project management to the theories of operations management in general, it is easy to recognize that it rests on the transformation theory (or view) of production, which has dominated production thinking throughout the 20th century. For example, Starr (1966) formulates: Any production process can be viewed as an input-output system. In other words, there is a set of resources which we call inputs. A transformation process operates on this set and releases it in a modified form which we call outputs…..The management of the transformation process is what we mean by production management.

In the transformation view, production is conceptualized as a transformation of inputs to outputs. There are a number of principles, by means of which production is managed (Koskela 2000). These principles suggest, for example, decomposing the total transformation hierarchically into smaller transformations,

„ Project Management Institute, 2002. Used with permission.

tasks, and minimizing the cost of each task independently. The transformation view has its intellectual origins in economics. The popular value chain theory, proposed by Porter (1985), is one approach embodying the transformation view. An explicit production theory based directly on the original view on production in economics has been proposed by a group of scholars led by Wortmann (1992). However, mostly the transformation view has been implicit – so embedded in thinking and practice that it has formed the basis of an invisible, unspoken paradigm that shapes behavior.

Theory of management

A central idea is that these processes form a closed loop: the planning processes provide a plan, that is realized by the executing processes, and variances from the baseline or requests for change lead to corrections in execution or changes in further plans.

Planning

Processes

Changes Plans

Performance

Controllingdata

Executing

Processes ProcessesCorrection

Exhibit 1. The closed loop of managerial processes in project management according to the PMBOK Guide.

Theory of planning

The planning of projects is thoroughly described from the point of view of different knowledge areas in the PMBOK Guide. The planning processes are structured into core processes and facilitating processes. There are ten core processes: scope planning, scope definition, activity definition, resource planning, activity sequencing, activity duration estimating, cost estimating, schedule development, cost budgeting and project plan development. The output from these processes, the project plans, make up an input to the executing processes. The planning processes dominate the scene in the PMBOK Guide: in addition to the

ten planning processes, there is only one executing process and two controlling processes. The emphasis is on planning, with little offered on executing especially.

„ Project Management Institute, 2002. Used with permission.

Comparison to theories in the general field of operations reveals that the perspective is that of management-as-planning (Johnston & Brennan 1996). Here, it is assumed that the organization consists of a management part and an effector part. Management at the operations level is seen to consist of the centralized creation, revision and implementation of plans. This approach to management views a strong causal connection between the actions of management and outcomes of the organization. By assuming that translating a plan into action is the simple process of issuing “orders”, it takes plan production to be essentially synonymous with action.

Theory of execution

How is the project plan executed? On this aspect, the PMBOK Guide is puzzlingly brief-worded. The only direct reference to the actual interface between plan and work is with regard to work authorization system, which is presented by four sentences: A work authorization system is a formal procedure for sanctioning project work to ensure that work is done at the right time and in the proper sequence. The primary mechanism is typically a written authorization to begin work on a specific activity or work package. The design of the work authorization system should balance the value of the control provided with the cost of that control. For example, on many smaller projects, verbal authorizations will be adequate.

The underlying theory of execution turns out to be similar to the concept of job dispatching in manufacturing where it provides the interface between plan and work. This concept can be traced back to Emerson (1917). The basic issue in dispatching is allocating or assignment of tasks or jobs to machines or work crews, usually by a central authority. According to a modern definition, job dispatching is a procedure that uses logical decision rules to select a job for processing on a machine that has just come available (Bhaskaran & Pinedo 1991).

Obviously, dispatching consists of two elements: decision (for selecting task for a workstation from those predefined tasks that are ready for execution), and communicating the assignment (or authorization) to the workstation. However, in the case of project management, that decision is largely taken care in planning, and thus dispatching is reduced to mere communication: written or oral authorization or notification to start work. Here, the underlying theory seems to be the classical theory of communication (Shannon & Weaver 1949), where a set of symbols (voice or written speech) is transmitted from sender to receiver.

Theory of controlling

The PMBOK guide divides the core process of controlling into two sub-processes: performance reporting and overall change control. Based on the former, corrections are prescribed for the executing processes, and based on the latter, changes are prescribed for the planning processes. Here we consider only performance reporting, based on performance baseline, and associated corrections to execution. They clearly correspond to the cybernetic model of management control (thermostat model) that consists of the following elements (Hofstede 1978):• There is a standard of performance

• Performance is measured at the output (or input)

• The possible variance between the standard and the measured value is used for correcting the process so that the standard can be reached.

This thermostat model is identical to the feedback control model as defined in modern control theory (Ogunnaike & Ray 1994).

„ Project Management Institute, 2002. Used with permission.

Discussion

Project management seems to be based on three theories of management: management–as planning, the dispatching model and the thermostat model. The first is evident from the structure and emphasis of the PMBOK Guide. The second is apparent from the discussion of execution in that Guide. The third is very clearly embodied in the closed loop of planning, execution and controlling as depicted in Exhibit 1. Neither theory comes as a surprise. Management-as-planning has been the widely held – even if most often implicit - view on intentional action in organizations up to now (Johnston & Brennan 1996). The dispatching model, closely associated with management-as-planning, has been common in industrial engineering from the beginning of the 20th century. Likewise, the thermostat model has been the dominating view on management in the 20th century (Giglioni & Bedeian 1974). These ideas were all current when project management emerged. Together they form the theoretical foundation of present management practice.

Is the underlying theory of project management adequate?

In which way is our position improved after explicitly defining the theoretical foundation of project management? There are at least two direct benefits. We can investigate whether a theory is the best available and empirically valid. Firstly, we can study whether the principles or assumptions of the theory have been shown to be invalid or incomplete by other theories, whose validity we rather must accept. Here, we compare different theories and operate mainly in the sphere of theories. Secondly, we can search for anomalies observed by scholars or unanticipated results observed in the use of methods based on the theory. In this case, our source of evidence is the encounter of the theory and the empirical world.

Note that these tests have different strengths and weaknesses. The comparison between theories is dependent on the existence of alternative theories. The test of empirical validity is a strong one if the question is of a genuine scientific experiment. In managerial sciences, observation from cases must often make do. However, together these tests, especially if their results converge, provide an indication of the adequacy of a particular foundation.

Is project management based on the best available theory?

Theory of project

We argue that the theory of projects as transformation is not the best available; rather it has to be augmented; this becomes rather clear when we remind that competing theories of production (projects are just special instances of production) have existed even before the emergence of project management. Another concept of production was presented already in the framework of early industrial engineering. The flow view of production, firstly proposed by the Gilbreths (1922) in scientific terms, has provided the basis for JIT and lean production. This view was firstly translated into practice by Ford (1926); however, the template provided by Ford was in this regard misunderstood, and the flow view of production was

further developed only from 1940'ies onwards in Japan, first as part of war production and then at Toyota. As a result, the flow view is embodied in JIT and lean production. In a breakthrough book, Hopp and Spearman (1996) show that by means of the queueing theory, various insights, which have been used as heuristics in the framework of JIT, can be mathematically proven.

„ Project Management Institute, 2002. Used with permission.

The major difference between the transformation view and the flow view is that the latter includes time as one attribute of production. Because time is affected by the uncertainty in the production process, as well as interdependencies between tasks, the focus is directed towards uncertainty and linkages, which are not acknowledged in the transformation view. Regarding the goals of project management, the flow view especially addresses the goal “unnecessary work is not done”. In the flow view, the basic thrust is to eliminate waste from flow processes. Such principles as lead time reduction and variability reduction are promoted. Thus, the managerial prescription is completely different in comparison to the transformation view; for example, the former suggests reducing uncertainty, whereas the latter accepts the existing uncertainty.

Still a third view on production has existed from the 1930'ies. In the value generation view, the basic thrust is to reach the best possible value from the point of the customer. The value generation view was initiated by Shewhart (1931) and further refined in the framework of the quality movement but also in other circles. Cook (1997) has recently presented a synthesis of a production theory based on this view. Axiomatic design developed by Suh (2001) advances further the principles along which requirements should be assigned to product subsystems, a significant issue of value generation.The major difference between the transformation view and the value generation view is that the customer is included in the conceptualization of the latter. Whereas the transformation view assumes that customer requirements exist at the outset, and that they can be decomposed along with work, the value generation view admits that at the outset, customer requirements are not necessarily available or well understood, and that the allocation of requirements to different parts of the (project) product is a difficult problem.

The value generation view provides for an explanation on the third goal of project management, delivering the business purpose. Principles related to rigorous requirement analysis and systematized flowdown of requirements, for example, are forwarded. Again, the prescription is very different in comparison to the transformation view, which more or less accepts the requirements as they are. It has been argued that these three concepts of production are not alternative, competing theories of production, but rather partial and complementary (Koskela 2000). What is needed is a production theory and related tools that fully integrate the transformation, flow, and value concepts. As a first step towards this, we should conceptualize production simultaneously from these three points of view: transformation, flow and value. The utilization of the transformation model only leads not only to a passive neglect of principles of the flow and value generation view but to an active violation of these principles.

Theory of Management

Theory of planning

There is another approach to management, called management-as-organizing, which has been presented as a counterpart to management-as-planning (Johnston 1995, Johnston & Brennan 1996). Here it is assumed that human activity is inherently situated, i.e. a response to the situation in question. Thus, the structured nature of the environment may contribute to purposeful acting. Another important difference to the management-as-planning model is that the agent consists of interacting sub-units, i.e. they are capable of sensing, planning and acting. Instead on central representation, it is assumed here that there are several

representations for different sub-units. Communication is non-hierarchical, based on interaction between sub-units. In this approach, management involves design, co-ordination and enabling of otherwise autonomous activities. Especially, management is focused on structuring the physical, political and

„ Project Management Institute, 2002. Used with permission.

cultural setting of action. It is important to note that it is not a question of internally consistent theories, but of theoretical orientations, that have implicitly been used. Also it is noteworthy that the approach of management-as-organizing is not exclusive; rather representations and plans are accepted as one possible basis of purposeful action.

The proponents of the management-as-organizing model have presented several strands of critique against the management-as-planning model (Johnston & Brennan 1996). First, it has been held that it is not generally possible to maintain a complete and up-to-date representation of the current circumstances and the plan to change them. Secondly, the absolute separation of management and execution is not seen to adequately correspond to organizational reality. Thirdly, the plans push tasks to execution without taking the status of the production system into account. The two last aspects mean that this model “leaves the task of management essentially uncoupled from everyday activity” (Johnston & Brennan 1996). Also the model implies that the process and outputs of planning are not questioned.

Theory of execution

There are two types of critique against the dispatching theory of project management. The first strand of criticism addresses the assumption that the inputs to a task and the resources to execute it are ready at the time of authorization. This criticism starts from the theory of planning – management as planning. In that approach, the unproblematic realization of tasks pushed by the plan to the execution is assumed. However, as discussed above, it is very difficult to maintain an up-to-date plan, and thus the tasks pushed by the plan do not correspond to reality, i.e. their prerequisites in terms of predecessor tasks (or other inputs) do not necessarily exist. This leads to the situation that a major share of tasks to be commenced, when pushed by the plan, chronically lack one or more of their inputs. In fact, this phenomenon is so pervasive that Johnston and Brennan (1996) say of the management-as-planning approach: “that this approach works at all is largely attributable to tacit knowledge and improvisation at the operational level.”

The second strand of criticism addresses the way action is thought to flow from authorization of a task. It is assumed that the task is fully understood, started and completed according to the plan once authorized. The dispatching model could be compared to starting an engine, which will run at a known rate utilizing planned resources; commitment of those responsible is implicitly presumed. This starting is achieved through communicating the authorization, that is giving orders to the responsible. However, this view has been challenged by the language/action perspective (Winograd and Flores 1986). They argue that the work in organizations is coordinated through making and keeping commitments. The commitment cycle begins with an offer or a request, followed by a promise, performance and declaration of completion. Thus action is coordinated by the commitments people make rather than by central control acting through commands. (In the language action view, orders are understood as strong requests and even here commitment arises from the promise to follow it.). The language action perspective reveals two basic shortcomings of the dispatching model. Firstly, in dispatching, there should be two-way communication between the controller and the executors. Secondly, it is necessary to consider the commitment of the executor; a job will actually be started and completed only if the executor is committed to realize it.

Theory of control

In addition to the thermostat model, there is another theory of control, one that addresses learning and improvement. Here, the question was originally about an experiment for quality improvement, where the validity of a specific hypothesis is checked. Then, according to the outcome of the experiment, the improvement method is possibly amended (Shewhart & Deming 1939):

„ Project Management Institute, 2002. Used with permission.

Let us recall the three steps of control: specification, production, and judgement of quality. […] In fact these three steps must go in a circle instead of in a straight line[…]. It may be helpful to think of the three steps in the mass production process as steps in the scientific method. In this sense, specification, production, and inspection correspond respectively to making a hypothesis, carrying out an experiment, and testing the hypothesis. These three steps constitute a dynamic scientific process of acquiring knowledge. However, this can be generalized: all operations can be treated as hypothesis testing, rather than those specified as experiments in advance. Then every operation must be specified, i.e. the hypothesis made explicit – this is exactly what is done in the Toyota Production System (Spear & Bowen 1999). In this way, the root causes for problems can be found, and performance improved. This “scientific experiment” theory of control reveals a fatal shortcoming of the thermostat model, which addresses returning to the standard performance using the resources at hand, but with different intensity. The thermostat model does not address finding reasons for deviations, and eliminating those root causes.

Theory of project

Let us first consider evidence related to the lack of flow conceptualization. Wiest and Levy (1969) hold it questionable whether the precedence relationships of project activities can be completely represented by a noncyclical network graph in which each activity connects directly into its immediate successors. Supporting empirical observations abound. Cooper (1993) claims that rework typically represents the bulk of development project expenditures and time: in design of large construction projects, there are typically from one-half to two and one-half rework cycles. Friedrich et al. (1987) strongly criticize the customary notion that large projects can be measured using yardsticks viewed as simple summations of individual yardsticks taken discipline by discipline, system by system, or component by component. Thus, the overall effects of revisions, repairs, and rework on large projects can be very significant, even when the individual impacts on specific functions and disciplines appear small and within “normal” acceptable practices.

Regarding the lack of value generation conceptualization, evidence is abundant alike. Research shows that as late as the start of construction, significant uncertainty remains as to what is to be constructed – thus, customer requirements cannot be taken as given and unproblematic (Howell et al. 1993). Indeed, Sahlin-Andersson (1992) challenges the view that big collaborative projects could be realized on the basis that basic intentions and restrictions are first clarified and then means are derived out of them. Rather, commitments, dependencies and expectations developing in the process of interaction drive the project to realization.

Theory of management

Theory of planning

Fondahl (1980) points out that it is practically not possible – or at least it is very difficult - to maintain an up-to-date plan. He describes the resulting situation illuminatingly: One of the major failures in the application of networking techniques has been the failure to utilize the dynamic potential of these procedures. All too often, however, only the original plan and scheduling data are ever produced. They continue to cover the office wall long after they are obsolete and bear little resemblance to the current progress of the job. Thus, the empirical evidence supports the theoretical argument of the impossibility of maintaining a complete, up-to-date plan.

Theory of execution

It is illuminating to contrast an engineering prescription for dispatching and an anthropological account of the situation when this prescription has been implemented. Fondahl (1980) recommends the following procedure for execution based on the implementation of a critical path network – it is easy note that this is the very idea of dispatching:Issue weekly memos to lower-echelon managers and subcontractors who have activities in progress during the week. These should provide updated start dates, details on methods and resource utilization, and current activity duration estimates.

Applebaum (1982) describes the resulting duality of management on the construction site: we have virtually two separate organizations; one for the management function and one for getting the work done. The two organizations do not coordinate their work, and they are characterized by different goals and viewpoints. Ballard and Howell (1998) found that in conventionally managed construction, a realization rate of 50 – 60 % is typically found for weekly tasks. Largely this low rate could be explained by missing inputs or resources during the execution of the task. These observations are fully in line with the theoretical argument that in the management-as-planning approach execution must rely on informal management in order to succeed in general. Tasks pushed to execution lack chronically inputs. That execution is managed informally seems to be a direct consequence from the underlying theory of management.

Theory of control : The kind of control advocated by the project management methodology plays in practice a minor and different role compared to the prescription (Loid 1999). In studied projects, meetings have formed the basis for the major part of the decisions. Financial performance data have been in supplementary functions, such as confirming the picture of how the work is proceeding through other channels and providing statistics on performed work that can be used in future projects. This reflects the lack of the learning function in the thermostat model: it is easier, speedier and more illuminating to directly consider deviations in task execution and to learn about their causes than through the performance metrics.

2.1 Theory of project managementThe project management theory is prescriptive. It is supposed to show how intended actions results into goals set to it. Generally, there are three possible actions namely the systems design used in making and designing, systems control so as to achieve the intended production, and finally systems improvement. Project management, and indeed all production, has three kinds of goals namely producing intended products (general goal), cost minimization and level of utilization (internal goals), and finally customer needs (external) (Koskela, 2002).

According to (Koskela, 2000), the theory of project management is intended to serve various functions. It gives explanation of observed behavior hence helps in understanding, it predicts the future, helps build tools of controlling, designing and analyzing, it provides common language for different people brought together for a common goal of achieving project objectives, it provides direct and recommends further progress, helps in transfer of innovative practices, and finally it is a condensed piece of knowledge (Koskela & Howell, 2002).

It is important to note that there is little to report on theories of project management. The reasons could be varying from either these theories do not exist or they are not enough (Turner, 1993; Koskela & Howell, 2002). It is therefore important to address this critiques by trying to come up with the project management theory by comparing the state of the art in this theory and other successful theories. This can only be achieved by proposing a formal theory and begin with the assumption, which was highlighted by both Turner (1993) and Koskela & Howell (2002), that project activities are related by sequential dependencies.

The theory of project management can be divided further into three theories, namely planning theory, execution theory and controlling theory. The processes associated with these three theories form a closed loop where the planning processes provide a plan that is achieved by executing processes. Any difference from the initial plan is corrected through controlling processes (Koskela & Howell, 2002). What Koskela & Howell (2002) means in the above paragraph is that project management is dominated by management as planning, the dispatching model, and the thermostat model. According to Johnston & Brennan (1996), these criticisms are well known where a lot of weight has been put on planning while almost ignoring the execution part. Authorization has been the main relationship between planning and execution. Control is where deviations from set parameters are corrected. The assumptions here includes performance standard are defined, a causal relationship exists between management actions and project outcomes; and that management actions can return the project to the desired state (Hofstede, 1978).

The theory of planning is made up of different knowledge areas. The process of planning comprises of ten core processes namely scope planning, scope definition, activity definition, resource planning, activity sequencing, activity duration estimating, cost estimating, schedule development, cost budgeting, and project plan development. These ten processes which are also called project plans provide an input to the executing processes. The output from these processes, the project plans, make up an input to the executing processes. (PMI, 1999). When

this theory is compared to theories in the operations field, it is revealed as that of management-as-planning (Johnston and Brennan 1996). The assumption is that the organization is made of a management part consisting of the centralized creation, revision, and implementation of plans and an effector part. With this type of management, there is a strong connection between the actions of management and outcomes of the organization as it assumes that changing plans into actions is achieved through a simple process of issuing orders.

Management-as-organizing, presented as a counterpart to management-as-planning is the other approach to project management in which it is assumed that human activity is inherently situated where it responds to the situation in question. (Johnston 1995; Johnston and Brennan 1996). What this means is that the structured nature of the environment have a contribution to purposeful acting. The other difference between management-as-organizing and management-as-planning model is that management-as-organizing consists of interacting subunits. The assumption here is that instead of having a central representation, there are several representations for different subunits.

There has been several critiques against the management-as-planning model by the supporters of management-as-organizing model (Johnston and Brennan 1996). These includes that it is not generally possible to maintain a complete and up-to-date representation of the current circumstances and the plan to change them, it is not realistic in an organization to separation of management and execution, and finally when planning, tasks are pushed to execution without taking the status of the production system into account (Johnston and Brennan 1996). According to Koskela & Howell (2002), the theory of execution is similar to the concept of job dispatching in manufacturing since it is the process which links plan and work. This concept was first presented by Emerson (1917). Dispatching involves assigning tasks or jobs to machines or work crews by the authority in charge of the project or work. It can also be defined as a procedure that uses logical decision rules to select a job for processing on a machine that has just come available (Bhaskaran and Pinedo 1991). It consist of making a decision and communicating the assignment where as in the case of project management, decision is done during planning the theory of control is divided into two processes namely performance reporting and overall change control. If we consider the later, the controlling process correspond to thermostat model that consists of a standard performance, performance measurement is done at the output (or input), variance between the standard and the measured value is used for correcting the process (Hofstede, 1978; Ogunnaike & Ray 1994).

2.2.2 Complexity Theory

Complexity theory was developed from systems theory in the 1960s, by gathering research findings in the natural sciences that examines uncertainty and non-linearity (Grobman & Gary, 2005). Its main emphasizes is in interactions which results into feedback loops that changes the systems constantly. According to complexity theory, systems are unpredictable and constrained by order-generating rules (Burnes & Bernard, 2005). Some of the areas where complexity theory has been in application includes strategic management and

organizational studies. It has dealt with how organizations adapt to their environments and how uncertainty affects them.

Organizations are made of complex structures of dynamic networks of interactions. Their relationships are not a summation of individual static entities. Organizations adopt in the sense that individual and collective behavior mutate, organizing themselves to correspond to a change-initiating micro-event (Gupta & Anish, 2012). Every project has some dimensions of complexity. Complexity theory helps understand the social behaviors of teams and the networks of people involved in and around a project. The idea of complexity theory is used to both small projects and large programs, and hence ‘complexity’ is not a synonym for complicated or large. The use of complexity systems in the field of strategic management and organizational studies is called complexity strategy or complex adaptive organizations (Grobman, 2005).Organizations are adaptive; in that the individual and collective behavior changes and self-organize corresponding to a change-initiating micro-event or collection of events. Very complex programs requires a high level of expertise in stakeholder management to deal with their complex requirements. It therefore becomes very difficult to fully plan this type of projects because the scope and requirements keeps on changing as time moves. But political and commercial pressures require as much certainty as possible ‘upfront (Mitleton, 2012). Project management has been simplified by complexity theory as traditional models have been found lacking to current challenges. The new approach of project management using complexity theory advocates to forming a culture of trust that encourages new ideas and cooperation (Saynisch & Manfred 2010).

Complexity theory is moving towards becoming a solution to complex interdisciplinary situations by clearly showing how order and patterns arise from apparently chaotic systems and conversely how complex behavior and structures emerge from simple underlying rules. This helps in understanding project management from a relationship perspective (McElroy, 2000). Since organizations exhibit principles like complexity, interdependence, self-organization, self-similarity, self-organization, co-evolution, chaos, and space of possibilities, they can be treated as complex adaptive systems (CAS) (McElroy, 2000). Theory of complexity is not made up of a single unifying theory but several theories arising from various natural sciences studying complex systems, such as biology, chemistry, computer simulation, evolution, mathematics, and physics. Stuart Kauffman and other scientists associated with the Santa Fe Institute (SFI) in New Mexico, USA has undertaken a lot of work in the past four decades (Kauffman 1993, 1995, 2000).

As a recommendation to project managers, complexity theory advocates for an approach that focus on flatter, more flexible organizations, rather than top-down, command-and-control styles of management (Burnes, 2005). Complexity theory is used in business as a way to encourage innovative thinking and real-time responses to change by allowing business units to self-organize. Sherman and Schultz (1998) gave the opinion that modern business moves in a nonlinear fashion, with no continuity in the flow of competitive events, except when observed from hindsight. In order to reap maximum benefits from complexity theory,

organization leaders need to give up rigid control of these systems from above. They can learn from their juniors by stepping back from the day-to-day running of the organization and watching for emergent properties and organizational patterns (Battram & Arthur, 2002).

This management culture that bring about the best practices to business should be preserved whenever possible. Organizations also need to evolve freely without the tight grips of managers by allowing customer feedbacks. Winning management models don’t adapt to the new economy but they emerge from it. It's no longer the survival of the fittest; it's the arrival of the fittest." However irrespective of applying complexity theory managers still needs to thing round the clock (Hout & Thomas, 1999). In the 1960s some of the most complex projects involved going to the moon and landing back to the Earth (Apollo) safely. These projects were important to the world since they necessitated the development of tools and techniques that deal with complex project management challenges that are still in use today (Shenhar & Dvir, 2007; Shtub et al., 1994). The complexity theory in this section addresses the independent variable, project procurement management. Project procurement management is a complex task which is essential for successful implementation of ICD projects in Kenya and therefore the complexity theory will assist the researcher navigate through the study. Implementing projects using scars skills and recourses is one of the complex factors that necessitate the development of new project management methods (Shtub et al. 1994).

2.2.3 Communication Theory

According to Shannon (1949), communication theory is a field of information theory and mathematics that studies the technical process of information. According to Dainton, et., al. (2005) communication theory is the process of human communication. On the hand Ruben (1984) says that communication is any “information related behavior.” Dale (1969) says it is the “sharing of ideas and feelings in a mood of mutuality.” Other definitions emphasize the significance of symbols, as in Berelson & Steiner (1964) who stated that it is the transmission of information, ideas, emotions and skill by the use of symbols.

The main problem about communication is the ability to reproduce at one point either exactly or approximately a message selected at another point (Shannon, 2001). Communication theory originated from the development of information theory in the early 1920s. Some limited information-theoretic ideas where developed at Bell Labs, where they assumed events of equal probability (Bob Jones University, 2008). A paper titled ‘Certain Factors Affecting Telegraph Speed’ was written in 1924 which contained theoretical section quantifying "intelligence" and the "line speed" at which it can be transmitted by a communication system( Nyquist, 1924). A paper titled, ‘Transmission of Information’, was written in 1928 where the author used the word "information" as a measurable quantity, reflecting the receiver's ability to distinguish one sequence of symbols from any other (Hartley, 1928).

The natural unit of information initially started as decimal digit but was much later renamed as the Hartley in his honor. This was the new a unit or scale or measure of information. A landmark event that opened the development of communication theory occurred when Claude

Shannon published an article titled "A Mathematical Theory of Communication" in the Bell System Technical Journal in July and October 1948. In his article Shannon focused on the problem of how best to encode the information that a sender wants to transmit. He used probability theory which was developed by Norbert Wiener. The two scholars marked the nascent stages of applied communication theory at that time. In the later years, information entropy as a measure for the uncertainty in a message was developed which lead to the inventing of the field of information theory (Shannon, 1948).

In 1949, Shannon in his declassified wartime work on the mathematical theory of cryptography proved that all theoretically unbreakable ciphers must have the same requirements as the one-time pad. Another theory connected with communication is the sampling theory introduced by Shannon which is concerned with representing a continuous-time signal from a (uniform) discrete set of samples. The theory enabled communication to move from analog to digital transmissions systems in the 1960s and later. Shannon &Weaver (1949) where the pioneers on the research involving the models of communication from other scientific perspectives like psychology and sociology. Their work was of great help to communication engineers in dealing with such issues as the capacity of various communication channels in 'bits per second'. This was the beginning of computer science (Guizzo, 2003).

In modern times, communication theory has evolved and in the process has given birth to a modern theory in communication called social information processing theory. This theory deals with computer‐mediated communication used by individuals to develop interpersonal impressions over time online. The theory explains how due to the absence of nonverbal cues when using a medium, communicators adapt to new communicating methods restricted to textual symbols. In this case, the processing of information requires more time than face‐to‐face communication to achieve satisfactory results (Walther, 2015). This theory encourages effective project communication by the use of modern technology as a good project management practice that might influence the implementation of ICD projects in Kenya.

Giles (1971) developed the communication accommodation theory, where people minimize barriers so that they can be able to communicate effectively. The theory was developed from speech adjustment theory also related to social psychology. Effective project communication as a project management practice can influence the outcome of any project especially when it comes to stakeholder management and therefore this theory will play a crucial role during the research process of investigating the influence of project management practices.

2.2.4 Theory of ChangeInland container deport projects are implemented with an intension to bring social change. The way this projects are designed and how it is believed that their design will propel them to the required outcome implies that they operate with some underlying foundation or theory (Chen, 1990). Therefore by studying the theory of change, implementers of these project will have a clear understanding of the implementation process of inland container deports in Kenya and its outcome by making assumptions explicit. Theories of change are grounded theories that are developed from data. Although sometimes it is puzzling about what the data

means, it is important to note that social realities are characterised by ambiguity and, secondly, that there are ambiguities in the theories generated (Weber, 2006).Project planning is a very difficult process even in situations where the project manager have a clear understanding of the objectives to be achieved. A theory of change is a tool that can be used to navigate through the steps of planning from the situation to the goal. It uses a graphical representation of changes to articulate and test the causal links between objectives. It highlights obstacles that may arise during planning and hence helps towards arriving to the project’s objectives (Maini & Borghi, 2018). Project implementation process involving application of project management practices usually applies complex interventions that comprise multiple components acting both independently and in conjunction with one another (Craig, Dieppe, Macintyre, et al., 2008). The complexity of these intervention includes; the number and difficulty of behaviors required by those delivering or receiving the intervention, number and variability of outcomes and the degree of flexibility permitted within the intervention ( Moore, Audrey, Barker, et al., 2015). A theory of change (ToC) can be effectively used to evaluate complex innervations where it takes into consideration the implementation process, the project context and impact to intended beneficiaries (De Silva, Breuer, Lee, et al., 2014). When a complex project is being implemented, it is important to know how intervention relates to and interacts with project deliverables to produce intended results. When applying this approach, several considerations need to be sought (Leischow, Best, Trochim, et al., 2014).

According to Weiss (1995), the theory of change explains the process of change within interventions and shows the linkages between the intervention activities and long term outcomes (Vogel, 2012). The theory of change states clearly all the assumptions and requirements needed to facilitate change acknowledging the role of context in influencing the process (Connell & Kubisch, 1998). While theory of change uses diagrams to show how project tasks interact in a non-linear fashion, logic models and logical frameworks are more rigid and linear in showing the relationship between inputs, processes, outputs and outcomes of project tasks (De Silva, Breuer, Lee, et al., 2014).

During implementation of a project it should be noted that theory of change keeps on changing and should be monitored throughout the process. Theory of change should be developed in conjunction with all project stakeholders to avoid project conflicts during the change process. Theory of change is currently used in quite a number of projects including construction, public health, and logistic industries both in the public and private sector. However ToC is rearly used as a process in design an evaluation projects (Maini, Hotchkiss & Borghi, 2017). During the monitoring process project progress is tracked against plans and milestones. In theory of change, a broader perspective is taken into consideration where the objectives of the project are looked into, the impact and expected changes in relation to process indicators and unintended outcomes. The validity of the assumption are relooked into in order to decide whether to adapt the strategy, or review the theory of change. Theory of change is important as it helps the project program and other factors in contributing to outcomes (Mayne, 2008).

Evaluation usually takes place at three stages of a project namely mid-term review, end of program review and afterward review. Midterm review checks the contribution of the project to the intended change in line with theory of change while end of program review, also known as summative evaluations would study if lessons learned can be up-scaled or transferred to other domains of practice. Theory of change checks how the project is evolving during the design, planning and monitoring stages, so as to provide input for the evaluation process (Mackinnon & Amott, 2006).

Theory of change as applied to the process of project evaluation come under the guise of many names. Rogers (2008) indicated in her article that theory of change is a program theory used to evaluate complicated and complex programs. Funnell (1997) referred it as a program theory and program logic. Weiss (1995, 1998) referred it as a theory-based evaluation while Chen (1990) referred to it as a theory driven evaluation, and Schorr (1997) referred it as a theory-of-action. The main difference between theories of change and logic models, is that logic models illustrate programme inputs, activities, outputs and outcomes yet do not explain how and why the outcomes are expected to occur (Clark and Anderson, 2004).According to Pete (2018), increase of capacity has received special prominence during the past few decades. This has been due to increased international cooperation (Becker, 2014).

The government of Kenya has not been left behind as it has been implementing quite a number of mega projects with the flagship theme of the big four agendas. One of the project the Kenyan government is implementing is the development and expansion of the port of Mombasa by construction of inland container deports. This will be carried out through various management systems, encompassing several design and implementation tools, which includes the Logical Framework Approach (LFA) and the theory of change (ToC). These are some of the most widely known and used tools in project implementation (Bakewell & Garbutt, 2005). ToC is a very popular concepts in international development settings as is able to address the complexity of these big projects (Vaessen, 2016). The theory of change will help the Government of Kenya predict, manage and where necessary avoid some of the project management risks during the implementation of the inland container deports. The theory of change will help the project managers during the implementation process by tracking the intermediate outcomes and defining the path to achieving the desired change, which will enables them to articulate the interrelatedness between different stages in the process (Dhillon & Vaca, 2018).

ORGANIZATION THEORIES

Diffusion of Innovation Theory Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) Theory was developed in 1962 by Everett M. Rogers, a professor of communication studies. It is one of the oldest social science theories. It originated in communication to explain how, over time, a notion or product gains momentum and diffuses (or spreads) through a specific population or social system. The end result of this diffusion is that people, as part of a social system, adopt a new idea, behavior, or product. Adoption means that a person does something differently than what they had previously (i.e.,

purchase or use a new product, acquire and perform a new behavior, etc). The key to adoption is that the person must perceive the idea, behavior, or product as new or innovative. It is through this that diffusion is possible.

According to (Nanayakkara et al., 2018), this process relies heavily on human capital and the innovation must be widely adopted in order to self-sustain. Rogers established five adopter categories with the majority of the general population tends to fall in the middle categories, it is still necessary to understand the characteristics of the target population. When promoting an innovation, there are different strategies used to appeal to the different adopter categories; Innovators - These are people who want to be the first to try the innovation. They are venturesome and interested in new ideas, very willing to take risks, and are often the first to develop new ideas: Early Adopters - These are people who represent opinion leaders. They enjoy leadership roles, and embrace change opportunities. They are already aware of the need to change and so are very comfortable adopting new ideas. They do not need information to convince them to change: Early Majority - These people are rarely leaders, but they do adopt new ideas before the average person. That said, they typically need to see evidence that the innovation works before they are willing to adopt it.

Strategies to appeal to this population include success stories and evidence of the innovation's effectiveness. Late Majority - skeptical of change, and will only adopt an innovation after it has been tried by the majority. Strategies to appeal to this population include information on how many other people have tried the innovation and have adopted it successfully and Laggards - People are bound by tradition and very conservative. They are very skeptical of change and are the hardest group to bring on board. Strategies to appeal to this population include statistics, fear appeals, and pressure from people in the other adopter groups. The stages are as indicated in figure 2.1.

Figure 1 Innovation TheoryAccordingly therefore, innovation, communication channels, time, and social system are the four key components of the diffusion of innovations. With the current technological sophistication in all sectors including construction, there is need to spread the latest methodologies and approaches in project work so as to yield successful projects. The modern software in project scheduling for instance can go a long way in curbing project delay leading to reduction in costs, hence the relevance of this theory in management of construction

projects for high schools. There is need therefore for the project team to be equipped with these innovative ideas at different levels of their project work

Contingency Theory Theory by Fred Edward Fiedler was developed in 1964 and asserts that when managers make a decision, they must take into account all aspects of the current situation and act on those aspects key to the situation at hand. In this theory, Fred emphasizes on both leader’s personality and the situation in which that leader operates. Each construction project is unique and with its own complexities and therefore should be managed according to its specific characteristics and environment in that particular period of time. The contingency theory recognizes this aspect and attempts to identify practices that best suit the unique demands of different projects. This theory rejects the idea of one best way to manage projects because of the varying management situations. According to (Salah & Moselhi, 2015) contingency theory takes into account the interaction and interrelation between the organization and the environment.

An elaboration by (Freeman, 2015) posits that Contingency theory represents a body of literature that seeks to explain the framework of organizations by scrutinizing their adjustment to external elements, specifically varying instances that introduce uncertainty in Decision‐Making. This theory recognizes that there are a range of contextual variables also referred to as risk factors which influence the project objectives differently. Examples of these variables are: external environment, technology, organizational structure and size, cost, culture, people involved and strategy. Contingencies for both budgets and schedules provide the project manager with the estimating caution they need to protect their projects from cost and time overruns (PMI 2006). Effectively allocating these contingencies can help project managers control much of the project’s uncertainties. In this study, this theory is quite applicable because the various schools are diverse in so many aspects in respect to among other factors; topography, population, leadership personalities and even the desired project undertaking. The delivery of construction projects is contingent and dependent of these diverse facets.

Theory of Triple Constraints The theory of the triple constraint states that: the triple constraint, is a triangle of time, cost and performance that bounds the universe within which every project must be accomplished (Mokoena, Pretorius, & Van Wyngaard, 2013). The Triple constraint constitutes a balance of the four interdependent project elements of scope, time and cost as a function of the project higher purpose; the cause and effect of new or changing triple constraint requirements are constantly negotiated during all phases of a project. The three key triple constraint relationships signify that at least one of the triple constraint variables must be constrained (otherwise there is no baseline for planning), and at least one of the variables must have capacity for exploitation (otherwise quality may be affected). The triple constraint theory is pertinent in this study because for any project success, the three main elements of cost, time and scope play a vital role and therefore any organization needs to be acquainted with the

relevant skills in management of these processes which form part of the nine project management knowledge areas. When integrated. The result is a successful project.

Stakeholder TheoryA Stakeholder Theory was incepted by R. Edward Freeman in 1984 and outlines how management can satisfy the interests of stakeholders in a business. As related to organizational management and business this theory addresses ethics, morals and values in managing an organization. It says that for any business to be successful it has to create value for customers, suppliers, employees, communities and financiers, shareholders, banks and others people with the money. Each of these influencers have a stake in the project and they can either be internal or external to the business. A stake is a vital interest in the business or its activities and a stakeholder can be affected by a business and he/ she affect a business.The theory states that you can't look at any one of their stakes or stakeholders if you like, in isolation. Their interest has to go together. Part of stakeholder theory is the element of awareness, involved decision making, and keeping the integrity of any project first and foremost. Failure to implement the stakeholder theory in many projects can result in pure disaster, especially if Stakeholder A is in the dark as to what Stakeholder B is doing. The theory is instrumental or strategic in nature and the inclusion of stakeholders in project processes is increasingly recognized as a significant feature in achieving project results.

Resource Dependency TheoriesWhilst the stakeholder theory focuses on relationships with many groups for individual benefits, resource dependency theory by Johnson et al, (1996) concentrates on the role of board directors in providing access to resources needed by the firm. Hillman, Canella and Paetzold (2000) contended that resource dependency theory focused on the role that directors played in providing or securing essential resources to an organization through their linkages to the external environment. The directors in this case being the secretary principals in the devolved units and the Sub-County Administrators ensured that there are enough resources to the Counties to enable them run their functions effectively. Indeed, Johnson et al, (1996) argued that resource dependency theorists provided focused appointment of representatives of independent organizations as a means for gaining access in resources critical to firm success.

The resource dependency theory underpinned the idea that resources were key to county success and that access and control over resources is a basis of power that enhances counties performance. Strategies were to be carefully considered in order to maintain open access to resources. It was argued that the provision of resources enhanced organizational functioning, firm’s performance and its survival (Daily et al, 2003). Hillman, Canella and Paetzold (2000) argued that directors brought resources to the firm, such as information, skills, access to key constituents such as public policy makers, social groups as well as legitimacy. This theory promoted the need for reliable sources of revenue that enabled the county achievement of its objectives for efficiency, effectiveness and county service delivery.

Participatory Theory of DevelopmentParticipatory theory of development is of the meaning that any community or society has solutions to the problems undermining socioeconomic transformation on one hand hence it places emphasis on creating partnerships and using participatory and people centered approaches to solve problems (Syokau et al, 2010). Participatory development has been embraced by the Government of Kenya as a strategy do empower disadvantaged communities to take control of their own lives through establishing a partnership between donors and the local communities.

Vorhölter (2009) argues that the principles of participatory theory of development are all people centered; commitment to holism, sustainability, capacity building, self-reliance and finally community- driven development. Participatory development is essential for at least two reasons; it gives vitality to the civil society and economy by empowering communities to negotiate with institutions and thus influencing public policy which provide a check to government power and finally it is important since it enhances efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability of development programs (Narayanasamy, 2009).

Participatory development approaches conventional project practice in a more participatory and sensitive manner and is introduced in a predetermined project framework says Tufte and Mefalopulos (2009) stating on further that it is a top down participation in the sense that management of the project defines how, where and when people can participate making it the common practice due to strained resources. Participatory development also in other terms known as popular participation is the process by which people take an active and influential role in decisions that affect their lives (Doll, 2010). The participatory development process many be a difficult and long process but it brings good fruits which include: contribution of local knowledge of activities, yielding of output relevant to perceived needs and a sense of community ownership (Hamilton, 2011).

Participatory development is a natural process where the communities know their needs and must be actively involved in all the stages of development; this can be achieved through empowerment, which is an essential to participatory development; it is enhanced when the projects in which the people participate are based on democratic approach, strengthening the capacity of members to initiate action on their own. It generates the capacity of people generate and influence development in various levels thus community ownership (United Nations Department of Economics and Social Affairs, 2009).

There are two alternative uses of participation; it can be an end in itself or a means to development argues Narayanasamy (2009) she continues that as an end, participation entails empowerment and as a means it leads to efficiency in project management. Participation is indeed a powerful tool that leads to development of policies such as those pertaining to community ownership. Participation in relation to community ownership according to Ife (2009) is of vital importance because of the following reasons: it results to better decisions, people are more likely to implement decisions that they have made rather that those imposed on them, motivation is enhanced during setting up of goals in participatory decision making process and finally participation improves communication and cooperation.

Queuing Theory

Queuing theory has its origins in research by Agner Krarup Erlang in 1909. This is a mathematical study of waiting lines or queues. The theory enables mathematical analysis of several related processes, including arriving at the back of the queue, waiting in queue (a storage process) and being served in front of the queue (Xie, Cao & Ong, 2016). The theory permits the derivation and calculation of several performance measures including the average waiting time in the queue or the system, the expected number waiting or receiving service, and the probability of encountering the system in certain states such as empty, full having an available server or having to wait a certain time to be served (Iman & Borimnejad, 2017).

The existing methodologies to independently optimize facilities layout design and material handling systems are mainly based on minimizing the material handling costs (Hill, 2014). This is despite the fact that the inherent variability causes an accumulation of work- in- progress at the various stages of production which eventually affects competing strategies of an enterprise such as time, cost and quality. Therefore, an integrated methodology that incorporates the manufacturing variability and concurrently optimizes the layout designs and materials handling is essential (Xie, Huang & Ong, 2016). Queuing model can be utilized to model the material handling system variations and genetic algorithm can be implemented to solve the integrated optimization problem. It is also demonstrated that the proposed optimization approach can significantly improve a production system with respect to total travelling time, total work-in-progress in the system, utilization and quantity of material handling equipment and required area.

In this study, the queuing theory is used to explain the association between store management procedure and service delivery. The use of the queuing theory helps organization to optimize facilities layout design and material handling systems while minimizing storage cost (Hill, 2017). Store management in public institutions helps to reduce the number of staff required, storage area as well as time taken to store or retrieve various materials for use. Two scheduling policies derived from queue management theory are commonly used by businesses to efficiently manage their inventory. FIFO, which stands for First In, First Out, ensures the oldest items in a business’s inventory supply are constantly rotated so they are used first. Last In, First Out (LIFO) is used in computing as a stack structure, in which the last item placed in memory is the first item removed. In inventory management, it involves always using the newest item placed in inventory first.

Records Life Cycle Theory

The Records Life Cycle theory was developed in the USA by Theodore Schellenberg in 1960, after the First World War in response to the ever increasing volume of records produced by organizations. The records life cycle concept is regarded as a theory which provided the framework for the operation of a records management programme. The records life cycle concept was an analogy of the life of a biological organism, which was born, lived and died. In the same manner, a record is created, used as long as it has value, and is transferred to national archives or destroyed. The records life cycle concept has four phases,

namely: creation, distribution, maintenance and use, and appraisal and disposition (Yu-Fan, 2009).

Buckland (2011), observed that since 1950’s many variants of the life cycle concept have been modeled and most of them were aimed at showing a progression of actions taken at different times in the life of a record, typically: its creation, capture, storage, use and disposal. Some writers have shown this as a linear progression while others describe it as a loop or circle. Nengomasha and Nyanga (2012) observed that under the records life cycle, records passed through three stages, namely: creation, semi-active and non-active stages. However, Meenaghan and Turnbull (2010) opined that the records life cycle theory created a distinction between the roles of records managers and archivists during the records life cycle. The weaknesses of the records life cycle concept, particularly its application in managing electronic records were pointed out by Nengomasha and Nyanga (2012). The authors pointed out that the concept would not be used in managing electronic records and needed to be replaced by a model which would appropriately reflect the special characteristics of electronic records. The authors emphasized that as technology changed; the record was prone to transformation and conversion. The concept of the records continuum had thus been promoted in the records management world as it addresses the management of paper and electronic records.

In stage one of the Life Cycle Model; the record is created, presumably for a legitimate reason and according to certain standards. In the second stage, the record goes through an active period when it has maximum primary value and is used or referred to frequently by the creating office and others involved in decision making (Buckland, 2011). During this time, the record is stored on-site in the active or current files of the creating office. At the end of stage two, the record may be reviewed and determined to have no further value, at which point it is destroyed, or the record can enter stage three. In stage three, the record is relegated to a semi- active status, which means it still has value, but is not needed for day to day decision making. Because the record is not consulted regularly; it is often stored in an offsite storage center. At the end of stage three, another review occurs, at which point a determination is made to destroy or send the record to stage four. In stage four, the record is reserved for inactive records with long term, indefinite, archival value. At the archive, specific activities are undertaken to preserve and describe the records (Yu-Fan, 2009).

Records Life Cycle Theory will be used in this study to explain the effect of records management procedure on service delivery in public institutions. The life cycle model not only describes what will happen to a record, it also defines who will manage the record during each stage. During the creation and active periods, the record creators have primary responsibility for managing the record, although record managers may well be involved to various degrees. In the semi-active stage, it is the records manager who takes center stage and assumes major responsibility for managing the records. Finally, in the inactive stage, the archivist takes the lead in preserving, describing, and providing access to the archival record.

Economic Depreciation Theory

The economic theory of depreciation is based on the pioneering paper of Hotelling (1925). Following Hotelling, depreciation is generally accepted to be measured by the decline in the value of a fixed asset resulting from its use in production. The value of an asset in production is given by the present value of the flow of services that it contributes to production over the remainder of its service life. When proper markets exist for used fixed assets, the current market price of a fixed asset should equal the present value of its remaining services (Allen & Ching, 2005).

Depreciation theory involves distinguishing between the value of the stock of capital assets and the annual value of that asset's services, distinguishing between depreciation and inflation as sources of the change in asset value, and distinguishing between the in asset values and deterioration in an asset's physical productivity (Alta, Pedro & James, 2015). The price of a new asset is determined by the equilibrium between the cost of producing the asset and the value of the asset to the buyer. The value to the buyer may be related to the return obtained by renting the asset to subsequent users, or "renting" the asset to oneself. In the latter case, (when the asset is owner-utilized), the value of the capital services is usually called the quasi-rent or user cost. Under perfect foresight (perfect information about the future), the value of the asset is simply the present value of the rents or user costs (Cardoso & Gomide, 2007). Individual assets may or may not be resold after they are first put in place. If they are sold, the transaction price would reflect the remaining present value of the asset (adjusted perhaps for the risk of acquiring a defective asset). On the other hand, used assets which are not on the market also have a remaining present value (Sahu, Sahu & Sahu, 2015).

The central issue in depreciation theory is how the market prices of a collection of identical assets change with age. The older assets in the collection should be less valuable than the newer ones for two reasons: (1) the age of 'optimal' retirement from service is nearer for the older assets and (2) older assets may be less profitable because they either produce less output or because they require more input (maintenance) to operate. At any given point in time, an age-price profile of the collection of assets should be downward sloping. Therefore, in public institutions procurement managers have to make decisions by balancing the cost of the new machine against the decrement in efficiency and the increment in cost of operation and maintenance of the old equipment (Alta, Pedro & James, 2015).

LEADERSHIP THEORIES

Full range leadership theoryAvolio and Bass (1994) developed the Full Range Leadership Theory (FRLT) which is a contemporary model. FRLT is a multidimensional construct comprising of transformational leadership factors, transactional leadership and laissez-faire leadership or absence of leadership (Antonakis et al., 2003). FRLT has been considered more successful in determining effective leadership because it has been widely accepted in literature, is supported by empirical research and is integrative.

Transformational leadership theoryThe transformational leadership theory was developed by Burns (1978) and later enhanced by Bass (1985, 1998) and others (Avolio & Bass, 1988; Bass & Avolio, 1994). The major premise of this theory is the leader’s ability to motivate the follower to accomplish more than what the follower planned to accomplish (Krishnan, 2005). Burns postulated that transformational leaders inspire followers to accomplish more by concentrating on the follower’s values and helping the follower align these values with the values of the organization. According to Burns, transformational leadership is “A relationship of mutual stimulation and elevation that converts followers into leaders and may convert leaders into moral agents.”

Bass (1985) refined and expanded Burns‟ leadership theory. Bass said that a leader is “one who motivates us to do more than we originally expected to do.” He said that this motivation could be achieved by raising the awareness level about the importance of outcomes and ways to reach them. Bass also said that leaders encourage followers to go beyond self-interest for the good of the team or the organization. Transformational leadership acts as a bridge between leaders and followers to develop clear understanding of followers’ interests, values and motivational level (Bass, 1994).

Transactional leadership theoryTransactional leadership is based on the traditional, bureaucratic authority and legitimacy where followers receive certain valued outcomes when they act according to the leader’s wishes. Burns (1978) who first conducted the study of transactional leadership indicated that transactional leaders are those who sought to motivate followers by attracting or appealing to their self-interests. In Bass’s (1985) conceptualization, transactional leadership results in followers meeting expectations, upon which their end of the bargain is fulfilled and they are rewarded accordingly. Bass and Avolio (1990) defined transactional leadership as understanding employee needs, providing for those needs to reward employee contributions and hard work and committing to giving those rewards after employees complete assigned work duties. Both employees and leaders recognize performance and effort, given an agreement with the leadership outlining obligations. The transactional leader gives followers something they want in exchange for something the leader wants (Kuhnert & Lewis, 1987).

The relationship is based on a series of exchanges or implicit bargains between leader and follower, clarifying role expectations, assignments and task-oriented goals. The transactional leader helps followers gain the skills and experience to efficiently and effectively do what is required of them in a particular task and in their defined follower role. Transactional leaders help followers accomplish tasks by modeling attitudes and behaviors appropriate to the efficient and effective implementation of the task at hand. Transactional leaders thus focus their energies on task completion and compliance and rely on organizational rewards and punishments to influence employee performance (Tracey & Hinkin, 1998; Trott & Windsor, 1999).

Laissez-faire leadership theory

Under laissez-faire leadership, the leader is inactive, rather than reactive or proactive. In a sense, this extremely passive type of leadership indicates the absence of leadership (Hartog, Muijen & Koopman, 1997). Laissez-faire style is marked by a general failure to take responsibility for managing. Laissez-faire leaders avoid involvement into making decisions, abdicate responsibility and avoid using their authority. Bass (1990) pointed out that there might be two types of laissez-faire leaders: those who show no leadership by avoiding it and those who do not lead because leadership is not necessary. Those who avoid leadership actually may be shirking responsibilities by burying themselves in paperwork, avoiding subordinates, setting no goals and letting things drift.

Institutional Theory

Institutional theory was founded in 1963 by two prominent Austrians: sociologist Paul F. Lazarsfeld and the economist Oskar Morgenstern. Institutional theory indicates that organization’s structures are influenced by social values that are typically taken-for granted, widely accepted and resistant to change. One aspect of institutional theory suggests that organizations conform to external environmental pressures to demonstrate their legitimacy to key stakeholder groups (Cardinale, 2018). Conforming to shared norms enhances the perceived legitimacy of organizations, protects them from external pressure and scrutiny, and enhances their potential for survival. Legitimate activities resonate with the shared understanding among stakeholder groups of acceptable standards of performance, and in regulated environments legitimacy can take a more dominant role than enhancing economic performance. The socially constructed patterns of practice, and the assumptions, beliefs and values that underpin the meaning of legitimate practices are referred to as institutional logics (Gong & Zhou, 2015). Institutional logics are important as they provide mechanisms to drive change, and crucially, also enable changes to be resisted through sustaining the legitimacy of current practice and shared values.

To acquire or maintain legitimacy, organisations respond isomorphically to their institutional environments (Cardinale, 2018). Isomorphism refers to the degree of homogeneity between organisations caused by the internalisation of external influences and much of the extant organisational research focuses on the propensity for conformity and similitude. Isomorphic responses are classified as: coercive, referring to convergence of responses driven by compliance or legislation; normative, seen through adherence to professional standards; or mimetic, where an organisation copies the structures and/or practices of others that are seemingly successful (Grob & Benn, 2014).

Institutional theory will be used to explain the influence of tender procedure on service delivery. Public sector procurement environments differ from the private sector, especially as public sector procurements are characterized by higher levels of regulations and stronger isomorphic pressures towards bureaucratization (Gong & Zhou, 2015). It is expected that contracting partners conform to such pressure in order to gain external legitimacy. Public agencies exposed to strong bureaucratic pressures may be more concerned about following norms, rules and regulations than drafting an optimal contract based on transaction cost

considerations. In Kenya, public procurement is guided by the PPADA, 2015, regulations and guidelines which are from time to time issued by the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA) and which must complied by all the public entities. The Procurement and Disposal Act 2015 and Regulations 2006 clearly indicate the process that should be followed in obtaining material in public institutions. It indicates that in the identification of qualified persons a procuring entity may use a pre-qualification procedure or the results of a pre-qualification procedure used by another public entity.

RISK MANAGEMENT THEORIES

Principal Agency theory

The Principal Agency theory enables a researcher to assess and analyze the relationship between the project team leaders such as the client and the project manager, who are tasked with the responsibility of ensuring that the project objectives are achieved, and that of the firm that oversees the entire administrative duties to include separation of ownership and control, and also how the managerial team motivates them in order for a project to be successfully completed. On the other hand, in corporate risk management, the main issues that affect project success if financial risk management which has been shown to influence managerial attitudes toward risk taking, that may affect the project success since their main focus is ensuring that there is a return on investment hence they might not be willing to release and extra funds required (Smith & Stulz, 1985).

This theory also explains possible conflict that can occur among the project stakeholders such as the technical part of the team with the administrative part of the team like the project sponsor due to factors such as delay in disbursement of funds required despite their being regulations on such in the project charter, which can result in the firm in charge of the project taking too much risk throughout the project such as schedule delays which may cause cost overruns hence affecting the entire expected outcome of the projects (Mayers & Smith, 1987).

The project manager needs to ensure that he hires a project team that has the required skills and knowledge, which ensures that the project is run according to set standards, they focus on the risk management process in order to be able to monitor and control the implementation process in the project. The level of expertise and qualification that a project manager has on risk management benefits and evaluation process will ensure that the project risk analysis is done prior to the initiation phase which will enable in estimation of the risks hence establishing strategies to mitigate the project from those risks. For the project team involved to be able to manage the various risks that may negatively affect a project, the project client in charge of financing the project may develop a matrix that may be used as the guideline that controls the project participants and indicate the various risk components associated with the project, which will enable the team to identify the risks and also calculate the chances of the risks happening and the impacts that the have on allocation of the funds disbursed (Minato, 2003) states the principal-agency risk, and expected conflicts may be reduced or eliminated by ensuring that the correct type of incentives are given when the project team achieves the set milestones throughout the project which acts as a motivation tool hence ensuring project

success (Hamimah, 2007). As project size increases depending on the nature in terms of size and scope of the project, it presents challenges in terms of coming up with ways to ensure that the set budget is not affected and ensuring that the project timeline set at the project charter is maintained in order to avoid conflict with the project sponsor due to delays in achievement of milestones and also ensures project success is viewed as a team effort from all the stakeholders involved.

In project management, the main principle of risk management is not about eliminating the whole risks since this may be difficult to achieve due to factors like natural disasters that cannot be controlled hence the project team comes up with ways of managing them properly when they occur (Dallas, 2006). There are many predictable and unpredictable risks that occur due to different sources of uncertainty which is why the project team needs to assess the risk management planning process and monitor it with a risk management plan indicating the various risks and assumptions and ways of handling them when they occur. The project charter also contains the business case that acts as a guideline of what the project aims to achieve, the various milestones that have been set, which include the performance of construction team and the incentives they gain when they achieve them. It also contains the actual budget that the project is allocated, the resources availability and how they are to be managed. The environmental impact assessment report is also done in order to guide each project complies with the set standard. It is also important to include a communication plan that outlines the involvement of other parties and a structure is set on how they report to each other throughout the project and also the binding contractual relations. The emphasis of the implementation of the risk management process in a construction project include completing the project within the specified cost and time and within the required quality, safety while ensuring that the project achieves the set milestones (Karim, 2015).

2.2.2 Portfolio theory

The portfolio theory was introduced by introduced by Harry Markowitz in 1952. There is a need of top management support related to effective decision-making in terms of allocation of funds as a contingency plan when risks occur that were not foreseen which enable the project team to manage risks effectively hence it doesn’t affect the expected outcome of the project. A factor that contributes to success in a project is the project sponsors support in ensuring that he includes experts involved in risk identification who ensure that the correct tools are implemented in order ensure project success. This also helps in improving decision making in the project and also come up with risk response strategies to implement when they occur (Kerzner, 2003). Tools such as the delphi technique enables the project team to properly identify risks that may negatively affect the project through the use of a team of experts who identify and analyze the impact that those risks have on the project. For a project team to succeed in effectively mitigating and monitoring risks, financial and technical support from the client’s organization is required. It ensures that they get to play a role in assessing and analyzing the success of the project due to the disbursement of resources when required by the team within (Hasanali, 2002). The project manager needs the top management support in order to be able to estimate the resources that are going to be required for the project. (Kerzner, 2003) also supports this view, stating that lack of visible executive

support is the biggest detriment to achieving maturity and excellence in the management and execution of various projects. (Rao, 2001) also outlines a number of key responsibilities for the executive to ensure project success, which include approving the project, confirming it is aligned to the strategic goal of the business, allocating resources such as human, time and financial resources to the implementation effort. (Wang, 2010) adds that communicating the business vision and overcoming resistance of project implementation to these key roles. Hence, top management should involve itself in resolving conflict by mediating between groups and promoting project acceptance, by building cooperation between various stakeholders and involving users in the project implementation process.

2.2.3 Uncertainty theory

The Uncertain theory was introduced by Li and Liu 2010 due to generalization of domain of uncertainty and the impact that it has on various projects. It is therefore important during the risk analysis process for a project manager and the selected team to implement the results of the decision tree analysis thus ensuring that they analyze and assess the possible outcomes of choosing the correct risk response strategy. The uncertainty theory can also be used in deciding on which risk analysis tool such as the probability impact matrix that is applied in order to analyze the possibility of a risk occurring and the impact that it has on the project success Li and Liu (2010. During the risk analysis process, the project manager can also use the monte carlo simulation technique that is a methodology for calculating the risks that may occur in a project through models that substitute a range of values which have a possibility of occurrence by calculating the results over and over while using a different set of randomly selected values from the possibility of occurrence. It is very important for a project manager to ensure that risk management is implemented from the project identification phase and not when it occurs during project implementation. Early development of activity network techniques in the 1950s, such as PERT (Program Evaluation and Review Technique), recognized the possibility of variation in task durations. Qualitative approaches that require the analysis and review of various tools and also the occurrence and impacts that may cause problems throughout the project, were developed to guide project managers to prepare for uncertainty with risk reduction and use of various contingency measures, Henriksen and Uhlenfeldt, (2006).

A project manager will ensure that in the risk identification process, he incorporates the data collected prior to the projects initiation, through techniques like the brainstorming process, Delphi techniques which will include expert opinions and judgment, he will also do a checklist analysis whereby he will compare other projects that had been done earlier in order to get the lessons learnt from them, the project manager can also use the risk breakdown structure which will be used in classification of various risks according to the impact that they have and chances that they might happen, this helps in coming up with the appropriate response strategies. It is important for a project leader to ensure that the team he picks for the project has the required skills that help in managing their interactions with the various project stakeholders which in turn builds ownership of the project while tools as contract formalization and enforcement throughout the project enables accountability of each member since there are rules and regulations set, responsibility charts such as a daily site report that is

filled by the site supervisor and reviewed regularly. Uncertainty risk also affects how project management should approach stakeholder management due to the fact that it is impossible to avoid conflict due to the dynamics of a team. In order to effectively manage these uncertainties, the project manager requires disciplined risk management that ensures that the identification of potential risk that could affect the project is well documented and strategies put in place for risk response which is followed by the planning of preventive measures to block adverse events and multiple contingent courses of action that are then triggered by such events (Young & Jordan, 2008).

2.2.4 Enterprise Risk management theory

The theory of corporate risk management, enables the project team to assess the occurrence of new risks that may occur that had not been documented earlier in the project. This theory enables firms with smooth cash flows to have lower expected tax liabilities that lead to financial distress costs and contracting costs that are incurred in the project which ensures that managing risk adds value to the project (Mayers & Smith 1982). According to Nocco and Stulz, (2006), ERM is a process that enables the project team to identify new risks, monitor the already identified risks and manage those risks with the various respose strategies such as avoidance, accepting the risks or mitigating them using third parties. This helps in the risk monitoring process since it involves the use of a risk assessment process in order to evaluate the probability and impacts of certain risks, risk audits which should be done regularly as the project progresses in order to be able to monitor and evaluate their impact on the project, also the use of technical performance measurement process will enable the project manager to be able to track the project progress and come up with ways of responding to any risks that may occur. The risk monitoring process requires constant progress tracking in the project, which enables monitoring of the identified risks and their response strategies to implemented effectively in order to avoid schedule delays in the activities which have been completed, but also to the uncompleted project activities. The project manager ensures that the team is aware of the expected and unforeseen risks which they monitor and control using strategies agreed upon throughout the project, hence ensuring that the entire team is working towards the set goals and objectives. Risk monitoring should be implemented throughout the project and the results well documented for future reference that enables the team to be able to analyze any uncertainties and the impact the have on the project. (Zwikael & Ahn, 2011).

2.2.5 Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory

This theory explains why certain employees in an organization act in a certain way in terms of their behaviors at work, how they respond to the duties given and what is a determinant of their actions and consequences, and the impact they have in assessing whether they were successful in achieving their set goals (Hunsaker, 2005). In the risk management process, this theory ensures that the project manager has the required skills and knowledge to be able to analyze the motivating and also the various factors that entail employee satisfaction in terms of the tasks that they ae assigned which is categorized as the motivation factors and hygiene factors. According to Frederick Herzberg, the factors considered as motivating to employees are achievement of the set milestones, recognition by the project leader for tasks achieved on or before the required time, the assigning of tasks within the team, the allocation of

responsibility to each member, additional responsibility that boosts morale and reduces boredom. The project leader needs to monitor the effects that certain factors and guidelines that cannot be changed such as company policy regulations which acts as a guideline on what is expected of the employees, supervision throughout the organization, work conditions are essential since they influence the employees productivity, and also the job security of the employees (Hillson & Webster, 2008).

In order for a project to be considered successful, it has to be completed on the scheduled time, at the budgeted cost and also within the required scope. Project managers have to ensure that they work towards ensuring that the team achieves what was planned. The project performance when monitored closely throughout the implementation phase enables the project manager to motivate his team accordingly. It is important to achieve these milestones within the project budget and also at the allocated time. For successful completion of a project, it needs to done within the set scope. It is essential that the project leader improves on factors that affect the employee productivity, such as the environment that they work in which directly affects their productivity and output (Schermerhorn, 2003). It is therefore very important for the project manager to ensure that he understands his team and the individual factors that motivate them so that he can be able to have measures in place in case he realizes that their productivity during the execution of the project has decreased.

Project Management Methodologies

Introduction

In order to achieve goals and planned results within a defined schedule and a budget, a manager uses a project. Regardless of which field or which trade, there are assortments of methodologies to help managers at every stage of a project from the initiation to implementation to the closure. In this tutorial, we will try to discuss the most commonly used project management methodologies. A methodology is a model, which project managers employ for the design, planning, implementation and achievement of their project objectives. There are different project management methodologies to benefit different projects.

For example, there is a specific methodology, which NASA uses to build a space station while the Navy employs a different methodology to build submarines. Hence, there are different project management methodologies that cater to the needs of different projects spanned across different business domains.

Project Methodologies

Following are the most frequently used project management methodologies in the project management practice:

1 - Adaptive Project Framework: In this methodology, the project scope is a variable. Additionally, the time and the cost are constants for the project. Therefore, during the project execution, the project scope is adjusted in order to get the maximum business value from the project.

2 - Agile Software Development: Agile software development methodology is for a project that needs extreme agility in requirements. The key features of agile are its short-termed delivery cycles (sprints), agile requirements, dynamic team culture, less restrictive project control and emphasis on real-time communication.

3 - Crystal Methods: In crystal method, the project processes are given a low priority. Instead of the processes, this method focuses more on team communication, team member skills, people and interaction. Crystal methods come under agile category.

4 - Dynamic Systems Development Model (DSDM): This is the successor of Rapid Application Development (RAD) methodology. This is also a subset of agile software development methodology and boasts about the training and documents support this methodology has. This method emphasizes more on the active user involvement during the project life cycle.

5 - Extreme Programming (XP): Lowering the cost of requirement changes is the main objective of extreme programming. XP emphasizes on fine scale feedback, continuous process, shared understanding and programmer welfare. In XP, there is no detailed requirements specification or software architecture built.

6 - Feature Driven Development (FDD): This methodology is more focused on simple and well-defined processes, short iterative and feature driven delivery cycles. All the planning and execution in this project type take place based on the features.

7 - Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL): This methodology is a collection of best practices in project management. ITIL covers a broad aspect of project management which starts from the organizational management level.

8 - Joint Application Development (JAD): Involving the client from the early stages with the project tasks is emphasized by this methodology. The project team and the client hold JAD sessions collaboratively in order to get the contribution from the client. These JAD sessions take place during the entire project life cycle.

9 - Lean Development (LD): Lean development focuses on developing change-tolerance software. In this method, satisfying the customer comes as the highest priority. The team is motivated to provide the highest value for the money paid by the customer.

10 - PRINCE2: PRINCE2 takes a process-based approach to project management. This methodology is based on eight high-level processes.

11 - Rapid Application Development (RAD): This methodology focuses on developing products faster with higher quality. When it comes to gathering requirements, it uses the workshop method. Prototyping is used for getting clear requirements and re-use the software components to accelerate the development timelines.In this method, all types of internal communications are considered informal.

12 - Rational Unified Process (RUP): RUP tries to capture all the positive aspects of modern software development methodologies and offer them in one package. This is one of the first project management methodologies that suggested an iterative approach to software development.

13 – Scrum: This is an agile methodology. The main goal of this methodology is to improve team productivity dramatically by removing every possible burden. Scrum projects are managed by a Scrum master.

14 – Spiral: Spiral methodology is the extended waterfall model with prototyping. This method is used instead of using the waterfall model for large projects.

15 - Systems Development Life Cycle (SDLC): This is a conceptual model used in software development projects. In this method, there is a possibility of combining two or more project management methodologies for the best outcome. SDLC also heavily emphasizes on the use of documentation and has strict guidelines on it.

16 - Waterfall (Traditional): This is the legacy model for software development projects. This methodology has been in practice for decades before the new methodologies were introduced. In this model, development lifecycle has fixed phases and linear timelines. This model is not capable of addressing the challenges in the modern software development domain.

Conclusion

Selecting the most suitable project management methodology could be a tricky task. When it comes to selecting an appropriate one, there are a few dozens of factors you should consider. Each project management methodology carries its own strengths and weaknesses. Therefore, there is no good or bad methodology and what you should follow is the most suitable one for your project management requirements.

PRINCE2 Project Methodology

Introduction

Effective project management is essential in absolutely any organization, regardless of the nature of the business and the scale of the organization. From choosing a project to right through to the end, it is important that the project is carefully and closely managed. This is essentially the role of the project manager and his/her team of employees.

Managing and tracking the progress of a project is no easy task. Every project manager must know (and communicate to his/her team) all the project goals, specifications and deadlines that need to be met in order to be cost-effective, save time, and also to ensure that quality is maintained so that the customer is completely satisfied. The project plan and other documents are therefore very important right through out the project. Effective project management, however, cannot simply be achieved without employing certain techniques and methods. One such method is the PRINCE2.

PRINCE2 . What is it?

PRINCE stands for Projects in Controlled Environments. Dealing with a bit of history, this method was first established by the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency (It is now referred to as the Office of Government Commerce). It has since become a very commonly used project management method in all parts of the world and has therefore proven to be highly effective in various respects.

The method also helps you to identify and thereafter assign roles to the different members of the team based on expertise. Over the years, there have been a number of positive case studies of projects that have used PRINCE2 project management methodology. This method deals with the various aspects that need to be managed in any given project.

The diagram below illustrates the idea.

In the above diagram:

The seven principles shown in the above diagram must be applied if the project is to be called a PRINCE2 project. These principles will show you whether and how well the project is being carried out using this particular project management method.

Similarly, the themes of PRINCE2 refer to the seven principles that need to be referred to at all times during the project, if the project is to indeed be effective. If adherence to these principles is not carefully tracked from the inception of the project through to the end, there is a high chance that the project will fail entirely.

The processes refer to the steps that need to be followed. This is why this method is known as a 'process-based' method.

Finally, with regard to the project environment, it's important to know that this project management method is not rigid. Changes can be made based on how big the project is, and the requirements and objectives of each organization. PRINCE2 offer this flexibility for the project and this is one of the reasons why PRINCE2 is quite popular among the project managers.

The Pros and Cons of the Methodology

One benefit of using this method over others could be said to be the fact that it is product-based and it also divides the project into different stages making it easy to manage. This is sure to help the project team to remain focused and deliver a quality outcome at the end of the day. The most important of all benefits is that it improves communication between all members of the team and also between the team and other external stakeholders, thereby giving the team more control of the project. It also gives the stakeholder a chance to have a say when it comes to decision making as they are always kept informed by the issuance of reports at regular intervals. PRINCE2 also ensures that improvements can be made in the organization. This is because you would be able to identify any flaws that you make in projects and correct, which of course would help you to a great extent in the long run.

The flexibility of PRINCE2 allows these changes to be made run-time. Although there can be some implications and issues to the project schedule when certain changes are done run-time, PRINCE2 offers some of the best practices to minimize the impact. Your team will also learn to save a lot of time and be more economical when it comes to the use of assets and various other resources, thereby ensuring that you are also able to cut down on costs a great deal. When it comes to disadvantages, PRNCE2 does not offer the level of flexibility offered by some of the modern project management methodologies. Since project management, especially in software industry, has grown to a different level, PRINCE2 may find difficulties in catering some of the modern project management needs.

Conclusion

It should be kept in mind that PRINCE2 is a very complex method and cannot be carried out without special training. Failure to understand precisely how it works could lead to a lot of problems and difficulties whilst carrying out the project. PRINCE2 guidelines can be selectively applied to certain projects that do not last long. This makes the method even more flexible and thereby more appealing to dynamic organizations and projects.

Event Chain Methodology

Introduction

In the initial stages of a project, complex processes and the many risks involved make it impossible to accurately model. A model of a project is necessary for efficient project management. Event Chain Methodology, an improbable modelling and schedule network analysis technique, is a solution to this problem. This technique is used to manage events and event chains that influence project schedules.

It is neither a simulation nor a risky analysis method but rather works using existing methodologies such as Monte Carlo Analysis and Bayesian Believe Network. Also, event chain methodology is used for modelling probabilities for different businesses and many technological processes of which one is project management.

Principles of Event Chain Methodology

Event Chain Methodology is based on six main principles

Principle 1

Moment of Risk and State of Activity - In a real life project process, a task or an activity is not always a continuous procedure. Neither is it a uniform one. A factor that influences tasks is external events, which in turn transform tasks or activities from one position to another. During the course of a project, the time or moment when an event occurs is a very important component of the event. This time or moment is predominantly probabilistic and can be characterized using statistical distribution. More often than not, these external events have a negative impact on the project.

Principle 2

Event Chains - An external event can lead to another event and so forth. This creates event chains. Event chains have a significant impact of the course of a project. For example, any changed requirements to the materials needed for the project can cause the activity to be delayed. The project manager then allocates resources from another activity. This leads to missed deadlines and eventually leads to the failure of the project.

Principle 3

Monte Carlo Simulations - On the clear definition of events and event chains, Monte Carlo Analysis is utilized in order to quantify the collective consequences of the events. The probability of the risks occurring and the effects they may have are used as input data for the Monte Carlo Analysis. This analysis gives a probability curve of the project schedule.

Principle 4

Critical Event Chains - Critical events or critical chains of events are those with the potential to impinge on a project the most. By identifying such events at the very beginning,

it is possible to lessen the negative effect they have on projects. These types of events can be detected by examining the connections between the primary project parameters.

Principle 5

Performance Tracking With Event Chains - It is important for a manager to track the progress of an activity live. This ensures that updated information is used for the Monte Carlo Analysis. Hence during the duration of the project, the probability of events can be calculated more accurately using actual data.

Principle 6

Event Chain Diagrams - Event Chain Diagrams depict the relationships between external events and tasks and how the two affect each other. These chains are represented by arrows that are associated with a particular activity or time interval on a Gantt chart. Each event and event chain is represented by a different color. Global events affect all the tasks in a project while local events affect just one task or activity in a project. Event Chain Diagrams allow for the simple modelling and analysis of risks.

Event Chain Methodology Phenomenon

The use of Event Chain Methodology in project management produces some interesting phenomenon:

Repeated Activity - Certain external events cause the repetition of activities that have already been completed.

Event Chains and Risk Mitigation - When an event occurs during the course of a project, a mitigation plan, that is an activity that expands the project schedule, is drawn up. The same mitigation plans may be used for several events.

Resource Allocation Based on Events - Another phenomenon that occurs with Event Chain Methodology is the reallocation of resources from one activity to another.

Conclusion

Using existing techniques such as the Monte Carlo Analysis, Event Chain Methodology manages events and subsequent event chains in project management. Working by six principles, this methodology simplifies the risks and reservations associated with project schedules. Therefore, the project managers and other senior managers, who are responsible for project accounts should have a clear understanding on the Event Chain Methodology. Since Event Chain Methodology is closely related to many other techniques used in project management, such as Gantt Charts and Monte Carlo Analysis, the project management should be thorough with all supporting techniques and tools for Event Chain Methodology.

AGILE METHODOLOGY

Agile Project Management is one of the revolutionary methods introduced for the practice of project management. This is one of the latest project management strategies that is mainly applied to project management practice in software development. Therefore, it is best to relate agile project management to the software development process when understanding it.

From the inception of software development as a business, there have been a number of processes following, such as the waterfall model. With the advancement of software development, technologies and business requirements, the traditional models are not robust enough to cater the demands. Therefore, more flexible software development models were required in order to address the agility of the requirements. As a result of this, the information technology community developed agile software development models. 'Agile' is an umbrella term used for identifying various models used for agile development, such as Scrum. Since agile development model is different from conventional models, agile project management is a specialized area in project management.

The Agile Process

It is required for one to have a good understanding of the agile development process in order to understand agile project management.

There are many differences in agile development model when compared to traditional models:

The agile model emphasizes on the fact that entire team should be a tightly integrated unit. This includes the developers, quality assurance, project management, and the customer.

Frequent communication is one of the key factors that makes this integration possible. Therefore, daily meetings are held in order to determine the day's work and dependencies.

Deliveries are short-term. Usually a delivery cycle ranges from one week to four weeks. These are commonly known as sprints.

Agile project teams follow open communication techniques and tools which enable the team members (including the customer) to express their views and feedback openly and quickly. These comments are then taken into consideration when shaping the requirements and implementation of the software.

Scope of Agile Project Management

In an agile project, the entire team is responsible in managing the team and it is not just the project manager's responsibility. When it comes to processes and procedures, the common sense is used over the written policies. This makes sure that there is no delay is management decision making and therefore things can progress faster. In addition to being a manager, the agile project management function should also demonstrate the leadership and skills in motivating others. This helps retaining the spirit among the team members and gets the team to follow discipline. Agile project manager is not the 'boss' of the software development team. Rather, this function facilitates and coordinates the activities and resources required for quality and speedy software development.

Responsibilities of an Agile Project Manager

The responsibilities of an agile project management function are given below. From one project to another, these responsibilities can slightly change and are interpreted differently.

Responsible for maintaining the agile values and practices in the project team. The agile project manager removes impediments as the core function of the role.

Helps the project team members to turn the requirements backlog into working software functionality.

Facilitates and encourages effective and open communication within the team. Responsible for holding agile meetings that discusses the short-term plans and plans

to overcome obstacles. Enhances the tool and practices used in the development process. Agile project manager is the chief motivator of the team and plays the mentor role for

the team members as well.

Agile Project Management does not

manage the software development team. overrule the informed decisions taken by the team members. direct team members to perform tasks or routines. drive the team to achieve specific milestones or deliveries. assign task to the team members. make decisions on behalf of the team. involve in technical decision making or deriving the product strategy.

Conclusion

In agile projects, it is everyone's (developers, quality assurance engineers, designers, etc.) responsibility to manage the project to achieve the objectives of the project. In addition to that, the agile project manager plays a key role in agile team in order to provide the resources, keep the team motivated, remove blocking issues, and resolve impediments as early as possible. In this sense, an agile project manager is a mentor and a protector of an agile team, rather than a manager.

1.4.2.3 Utilization- focused evaluation: This approach was developed by Patton (1986). He emphasized that the process identifying and organizing relevant decision makers and information users is the first step in evaluation. In his view the use of evaluation findings require that decision makers determine what information is needed by various people and arrange for that information to be collected and provided to those people. He recommends that evaluators work closely with primary intended users so that their needs will be met. This requires focusing on stakeholders’ key questions, issues, and intended uses. It also requires involving intended users in the interpretation of the findings, and then disseminating those findings so that they can be used. One should also follow up on actual use. It is helpful to develop a utilization plan and to outline what the evaluator and primary users must do to result in the use of the evaluation findings. Ultimately, evaluations should, according to Patton, be judged by their utility and actual use

1.4.2.4 System analysis approach:

The approach has been suggested to be linked to management – oriented evaluation model. However, most system analysis may not be evaluative oriented due to their narrow research focus.

5.5 Expertises - Oriented Evaluation ApproachesThe expertise oriented approaches to evaluation depend primarily on professional

expertise to judge an educational activity, programme or product. Some scholars regard evaluation as a process of finding out the worth or merit of a programme. Stake (1975), for example, views evaluation as being synonymous with professional judgments. These judgments are based on the opinion of experts. According to these approaches, the evaluator examines the goals and objectives of the programme and identifies the area of failures or successes.

5.6 Consumer oriented evaluation approachedSome theorists consider evaluation a consumer service. They stress that although the needs of project funder and mangers are important, they are often not the same as those of consumers. The main proponents of this theory are Michael Scrivens.A consumer-oriented evaluation approach typically occurs when independent agencies, governmental agencies, and individuals compile educational or other human services products information for the consumer. Such products can include a range of materials including: curriculum packages, workshops, instructional media, in-service training opportunities, staff evaluation forms or procedures, new technology, and software. The consumer-oriented evaluation approach is increasingly being used by agencies and individuals for consumer protection as marketing strategies are not always in the best interest of the consumer. Consumer education typically involves using stringent evaluation criteria and checklists to evaluate products.

The consumer-oriented evaluation approach is typically applied to education products and programs. It is typically used by government agencies and other independent educational consumer advocates (i.e. the Educational Products Information Exchange), with the common goal to make more product information available. Although this approach can be used for any consumer product, in the public sector it is typically used for educational products and programs.

Advantages of using a consumer-oriented evaluation approach1. Has made evaluations available on products and programs to consumers who may

have not had the time or resources to do the evaluation process themselves2. Increases the consumers’ knowledge about using criteria and standards to

objectively and effectively evaluate educational and human services products3. Consumers have become more aware of market strategies

Disadvantages of using a consumer-oriented evaluation approach1. Increases product costs onto the consumer2. Product tests involves time and money, typically passed onto the consumer

3. Stringent criteria and standards may curb creativity in product creation4. Concern for rise of dependency of outside products and consumer services rather than

local initiative development

5.7 Adversary oriented evaluation approaches (Judicial).Judicial or adversary-oriented evaluation is based on the judicial metaphor. It is

assumed here that the potential for evaluation bias by a single evaluator cannot be ruled out, and, therefore, each “side” should have a separate evaluator to make their case. For example, one evaluator can examine and present the evidence for terminating a project and another evaluator can examine and present the evidence for continuing the project. A “hearing” of some sort is conducted where each evaluator makes his or her case regarding the evaluand. In a sense, this approach sets up a system of checks and balances, by ensuring that all sides be heard, including alternative explanations for the data. Obviously the quality of the different evaluators must be equated for fairness. The ultimate decision is made by some judge or arbiter who considers the arguments and the evidence and then renders a decision.

Example of this model includes multiple “experts” otherwise known as blue-ribbon panel, where multiple experts of different backgrounds argue the merits of some policy or project. Some committees also operate, to some degree, along the lines of the judicial model. As one set of authors put it, adversary evaluation has “a built-in metaevaluation” (Worthen and Sanders, 1999). A metaevaluation is simply an evaluation of an evaluation.

By showing the positive and negative aspects of a program, considering alternative interpretations of the data, and examining the strengths and weaknesses of the evaluation report (metaevaluation), the adversary or judicial approach seems to have some potential. On the other hand, it may lead to unnecessary arguing, competition, and an indictment mentality. It can also be quite expensive because of the requirement of multiple evaluators. In general, formal judicial or adversary models are not often used in project evaluation. 5.8 Goal free Evaluation

According to this approach, project goals and objectives should not be taken as given. Like other aspects of the project or activity, they should be evaluated. In addition, the evaluator focuses on the activity rather than its intended effects. In goal free evaluation, the evaluator is not limited to the goals of the project; he or she focuses on actual outcomes.5.9 Naturalistic and participation oriented approaches

This approach stresses firsthand experience of project settings and activities. It involves intensive study of the project as a whole. Stake calls it responsive evaluation i.e. what people do naturally. Evaluators are expected to be responsive to project realities and to the reactions. They are also expected to be responsive to concerns and issues of participants rather than being preordinate i.e. strictly following a prescribed plan. In this approach, the evaluator studies project activities as they occur naturally, without manipulating or controlling it. Naturalist evaluation tends to be based on project activity rather than project outcomes. Naturalistic evaluators use collaboration of data through cross-checking and triangulation to establish credibility.5.10 Participatory evaluationThis model is also called collaborative or stakeholder-based evaluation model. Proponents of this model contents that since different parties have an interest in the outcomes of the

evaluation they should always be involved in the design and conduct of evaluations. Stakeholder-based evaluation is expected to yield two positive outcomes, realistic and more effective results and improved utilization of the findings. However, this approach should be used sparingly because of the requirements of confidentiality and credibility that dictate the distancing of the evaluator from the evaluated (Scriven, 2001, p. 28). Using a collaborative approach is also costly in time and money. Moreover, different stakeholders tend to have conflicting expectations.