DRO
An investigation into using SAP-PS as a multidimensional project control system
(MPCS)
Machen, Brett, Hosseini, M. Reza, Wood, Anthony and Bakhshi, Javad 2016, An investigation into
using SAP-PS as a multidimensional project control system (MPCS)
, International journal of
enterprise information systems
, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 66-81.
DOI:
10.4018/IJEIS.2016040105
©2016, IGI Global
Reproduced with permission.
Downloaded from DRO:
DOI: 10.4018/IJEIS.2016040105
An Investigation into using
SAP-PS as a Multidimensional Project
Control System (MPCS)
Brett Machen, School of Natural and Built Environments, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia M. Reza Hosseini, School of Architecture and Built Environment, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia Anthony Wood, School of Natural and Built Environments, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia Javad Bakhshi, Entrepreneurship, Commercialisation and Innovation Centre (ECIC), University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia
ABSTRACT
This paper investigates the effectiveness of using a corporate enterprise resource planning (ERP) system as a multi-dimensional project control system (MPCS) to monitor and control the work performed on projects, meet the needs and expectations of the project managers and support the requirements of other key stakeholders. A qualitative approach i.e. case study interviews and literature review accompanied by a quantitative computer system validation test approach was deployed. The results from this study suggest that the corporate ERP system is effective at monitoring and controlling the project stakeholder success criteria within a fully integrated environment. The system does however need to be setup and configured for the purpose of MPCS. This study contributes to the field by providing empirical evidence that corporate ERP systems are likely one of the only systems truly capable of solving the age old problem of how to expand the traditional singular dimensional approaches commonly used in project control, thus multiple control dimensions are integrated with each other and other business systems to form a multi-dimensional project control system.
KEywoRdS
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP), Multi-dimensional Project Control System (MPCS), Project Control, SAP Project Systems
INTRodUCTIoN
The area of project control remains lacking in development (Rozenes et al., 2004). That is, as contended by Rozenes et al. (2006), for project control to progress, the current traditional approaches and methodologies need to be redesigned. The problem with how project control is currently performed is that there remains a reliance on the legacy methodologies developed during the sixties in which little or no project control system integration occurs (Budd and Budd, 2010; Hazır, 2014). By the same token, Kim et al. (2008) and De Marco and Narbaev (2013) argued that practical applications of project control systems integration is generally lacking and projects continue to be controlled using disparate single dimensional systems.
Addressing such deficiency lies in expanding the traditional singular dimensional approaches (Rozenes et al., 2004). To this end, multiple control dimensions are integrated with each other and other business systems to form a Multidimensional Project Control System (MPCS). Yet, legacy project control systems are difficult to align with other enterprise systems (Songer et al., 2004; Franz, 2009).
Against this backdrop, Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) has evolved through enterprise systems history, providing corporations with solutions for integrating disparate legacy business systems across intra-organisational boundaries (Bendoly et al., 2011). The use of fully ERP integrated project control systems appears to be a relatively new development in project management (Andera et al., 2012). Project management practitioners have started looking beyond using their ERP systems as a cost centre management tool and have progressed towards using it as an effective tool to drive project and business results (Andera et al., 2012).
However, establishing integrated project control environments needs change and acceptance within the organisation’s project management culture across all levels of the organisation before full benefit can be realised (Essex, 2005). That is, the success of fully integrated MPCS requires a change in project control processes, project practitioner educational programs, workforce training and deeper knowledge of not only the ERP integrated application, but also how the business operates; how projects are controlled and managed and how to fully utilise the systems to maximise benefit (Rozenes et al., 2006; Andera et al., 2012). Thus, integrated project management and control has become a very fertile area for project management knowledge research and development. Nonetheless, review of literature revealed a gap in the knowledge, being the investigation of practical applications of fully integrated multidimensional project control systems. This includes looking into potentials for integration of MPCS within the project management environment as well as how the MPCS methodology can be practically applied within an operating corporate and business environment to achieve full integration with the corporate ERP system.
In response to such gap of knowledge, this study delves into the theory and practicality of MPCS and how MPCS can be integrated into an operating business environment. This study intends to answer whether an ERP integrated project management system can truly offer a one-system solution that performs the role of a MPCS and displace the legacy single dimensional project control systems currently in common use while still meeting the needs and expectations of the project manager and other key stakeholders within the organisation. The ERP system chosen for this study is SAP-PS (Project Systems). The reason SAP-PS is selected for this study is that it has built-in project and portfolio management tools required for MPCS and it closely integrates with all other aspects of business management including Accounting, Materials Management, Sales, Production, Human Resources, and Plant Maintenance (Franz, 2009). It is contended that the principles derived in this study should also be applicable to other ERP systems with the same level of functionality and data integration as SAP-PS.
LITERATURE REvIEw
The Project Management Institute’s standard on project management (PMI 2013) defines project monitoring and controlling as the processes and activities performed within a project to track, review and coordinate the progress and performance of the project. This is performed by identifying areas within the project where project performance has deviated or changed from the baseline plan and then control these changes by recommending corrective or prevented actions to bring in danger project process back on track before they become a serious problem. Against this backdrop, current disparate singular dimensional project control systems have received much criticism within many different project management literature e.g. (Kim et al., 2008; De Marco and Narbaev, 2013). Cooke-Davies (2002) argued that traditional, singular-dimensional control systems are more concerned with monitoring project management success as opposed to measuring project success against the overall objectives. In the same vein, Lauras et al. (2010) argued that singular project controls systems do
not provide a view of the project as a whole and may even result in superfluous and incompatible performance measures.
With the effectiveness of the traditional, one-dimensional project control methodologies in question many project management researchers and practitioners are now recommending that a multidimensional approach in project control is more effective (Nicholas, 2004; Mantel et al., 2005; Rozenes et al., 2006). The concept of MPCS is where several dimensions are integrated within the same control system. Yet, there seems to be a consensus in the literature that there is currently a lack of project management tools that support an integrated multidimensional project control approach (Cheung et al., 2004; Rozenes et al., 2006; Lauras et al., 2010). Within the modern corporate environments utilising fully integrated business systems, there is only one true source of project performance information i.e. an ERP system.
ERP Project Management Systems
Very few software packages available on the market can easily and reliably integrate several project dimensions, especially those that are imbedded within the enterprise systems (Dowling, 2008). The ERP system does however have the proven architecture, functionality and data resources to achieve multiple levels of business system integration that can also be utilised within the project environment (Modi and Mabert, 2011). Lau (2005) defines ERP as the process of integrating all the business functions, processes and systems in an organisation into a single point of centralised business information that can be used for decision-making, and controlling all aspects of the business including operations, productivity, coordination and performance. ERP systems are implemented as total business solutions that provide corporations with many significant advantages over traditional business systems; for most businesses, their ERP system is their most complex and sophisticated system used to provide business managers with a single portal of visibility into the business’s key performance indices (Smyrlis, 2008; Lv and Chen, 2010). ERP is regarded by many, e.g. (Usmanij et al., 2013) as the most effective computer application to support the overall business objectives and the most significant technological business advancement to emerge in recent times. In this context, Modi and Mabert (2011) performed a review of the enterprise system industry landscape and found only five main ERP vendors offered integrated application intended to be used as project management systems. These included SAP, Oracle, Infor, i2 Technologies, and IBM. The largest two ERP providers by market share are SAP and Oracle (Henderson, 2009; Modi and Mabert, 2011). When considering ERP integrated project management systems, SAP and Oracle have a clear dominance over other systems; this can be attributed to their respective positions in market share (Modi and Mabert, 2011).
SAP- PS
SAP-PS (Project System) has organically evolved with the ERP in response to industry feedback since the early release in 1979 of the R/2 mainframe system (Franz, 2009). . Franz (2009, p.13) and Dowling (2008, p.2) suggest that SAP-PS is one of the most capable project management systems within the current range of ERPs. It is however difficult to make a comparison because not only does there appear to be a lack of study into MPCS but there is also very limited information on the performance of SAP-PS as a project management tool. Today SAP is the largest developer of enterprise software applications in the world (Lau, 2005; Henderson, 2009). This position has come from successfully being able to help its clients deal with vast volumes of data and coordinate their business processes and functions across organisational boundaries on a global scale (Bendoly et al., 2011, p.23).
SAP ECC 6.0 and other ERP systems offer business many benefits that go beyond being tools for completing business transactions; however, the systems do also have their disadvantages, limitations and in some cases even performance reductions in certain business functional areas as illustrated in Table 1. Nevertheless, the advantages of ERP system implementations normally outweigh the disadvantages. That is, enterprises basically need to effectively adopt an ERP system to successfully compete within the modern commercial landscape. Failure to adoption of ERP effectively ends up in
loosing profit and losing the game of survival to competitors who have embraced the benefits of fully integrated ERP systems (Yang and Su, 2009; Annamalai and Ramayah, 2011; Andera et al., 2012).
Argyropoulou et al. (2011) comments that for many businesses that are motivated by the potential business benefits available from an ERP system, unless managers are focused on making the system pay and contribute to the business objectives, these benefits will not be fully realised. For this reason, it is easy to understand that for a successful ERP integrated multidimensional project controls system to deliver performance results over traditional project control methodologies the project managers and practitioners must embrace the system and strive to extract maximum benefit from the ERP system.
Critical Appraisal of the Extant Literature
There is a significant amount of information and literature available on ERP systems with the majority of information being centred on ERP technology related issues, evolving IT architecture, and ERP system implementation (Bendoly et al., 2011). For SAP’s native project management control solution SAP-PS there is also abundant sources for reference manuals and guide books; however, these sources concentrate on being instructional manuals for system users and administrators with very little content on how the SAP-PS system relates back to project management methodology with no connection to MPCS theory. Consequently, ERP and MPCS appears to be very fertile grounds for further research. This view is supported by many sources for reasons including:
• Robert Jacobs and ‘Ted’ Weston Jr (2007) argued that the current ERP technology provides an information rich environment that is ripe for improvements in planning, control and execution logic. They further stated that most organisations are not harnessing the full benefits of their ERP system because they are basically using their new generation of ERP systems to simply execute the same old logic much faster and in real-time;
• Several sources identify a lack of practical and effective project management tools that support an integrated multidimensional project control approach (Cheung et al., 2004; Rozenes et al., 2006; Lauras et al., 2010);
Table 1. SAP ERP System advantages and disadvantages
Advantages Disadvantages
Unified enterprise view of the business across all functions and departments;
Single database where all transactions are entered, recorded, processed, monitored and reported;
Enables companies to achieve their objectives of increased communications and collaboration with all stakeholders; Supports information sharing along business lines and helps business achieve operating efficiencies; Maximise throughput of information and minimising response times to customers and suppliers; Integrate information throughout the supply chain; Provide timely information to decision makers;
Provide an integrated common set of business applications across the organisation.
For many organisations implementing SAP ERP systems means the reengineering of their business processes in fundamental ways to suit the SAP ERP definitions of how business should be conducted. This can cause a great deal of disruption and even a decrease in performances especially if the systems are not fully adopted and supported;
SAP ERP system rigidity once configured means most business process options are fixed;
Users are restricted with limited freedom to customise the business process to suit individual preferences and must complete processes according to predefined rules; SAP ERP implementations are vastly complex and can result in implementation failures due to time/cost overruns and loss of management support;
Users and managers must be focused on making the system pay and contribute to the business objectives or the system will not deliver the benefits and performance improvements expected.
• Researchers Rozenes et al. (2004) have completed significant studies into the MPCS knowledge area of project management and have identified that the area offers great potential for further research; In essence, the review of literature revealed an absence of research studies on the performance of SAP-PS as a MPCS. In view of the wealth of potential business benefit and the lack of effectual and practical tools to help integrate a multidimensional project control methodology into the project environment, conducting and empirical inquiry such as the present study becomes very relevant.
RESEARCH METHodS
To achieve the objectives of this study, the approach as illustrated in Figure 1 was adopted.
As shown in Figure 1, a case study was chosen as the principal approach for conducting the present research study because each individual project is intrinsically complex, restricted to a certain time period and location, and embedded in a particular culture. Thus, taking a holistic approach rather than a reducible approach for research becomes relevant, as asserted by Verschuren (2003). The protocol for deploying a case study approach in this paper closely conforms to the definition proposed by the authoritative work of Creswell (2003). As such, the case study in this paper encompasses exploring a single entity (i.e. a project) confined by activity and time boundaries for collecting comprehensive information during a certain period of time. The first author was an employee on the project, which added great value to the information gathered in the present study, as discussed by Tribelsky and Sacks (2011), where authors were able to overcome many of the issues normally facing researchers relating to access to project documents, attending meetings and recording exchanges.
As illustrated in Figure 1, the case study was performed within an established framework for project stakeholder identification and needs analysis as prescribed by PMI (2013). The method was chosen because it is an established process described by many sources e.g. (Maley, 2012; Jepsen and Eskerod, 2013; PMI, 2013) as being an effective and preferred method for capturing the required opinions, attitudes, values and characteristics of the project stakeholders.
The organisation studied as the case was a global provider of commercial explosives and blasting systems to the mining and infrastructure markets while the boundary of the study was limited to the organisation’s industrial continuous manufacturing chemical plants. The projects executed for the two continuous manufacturing plants were delivered as a programme of projects managed by a separate corporate project delivery division that was responsible for managing capital projects for their customers, the manufacturing plants. The portfolio of capital investment projects consisted of approximately 500 individual engineering projects with a diverse range of delivery scopes and many varied stakeholders having a value of between $100,000 and $5,000,000. It was contended that such portfolio of projects alongside the varied stakeholders involved offer an excellent case study example in light of the diverse list of stakeholder success criteria available to be used as assessment parameters for investigating a MPCS. Besides, such a wide project range was deemed appropriate because it represents 80% of the capital investment projects within the organisation.
For the purpose of the present study, the contexts of the case study projects were discussed with the stakeholders during the meetings centred on the typical type of sustaining capital engineering projects executed within the organisation’s portfolio of projects. The case study discussion project boundaries were reflective of the portfolio: typical small engineering projects being internally executed for sustaining capital investment purposes and having a scale that did not impact directly on any external major stakeholders such as the government, community or other commercial partners. The case study projects were imaginary but still conformed with the organisation’s project management standards and the PMBOK® Guide (PMI, 2013) definitions for project life cycle and phasing. The purpose of the discussions was not to explore the imaginary projects but to engage with the stakeholders and build an interview environment of trust, sharing of knowledge and effective communication, with the aim
of discovering the stakeholder’s real project requirements that could be related back to satisfaction criteria as argued by Rhodes et al. (2014).
The stakeholder identification and needs analysis followed a three stage process in alignment with the recommendations proposed by Jepsen and Eskerod (2013), as illustrated in Figure 1. This
comprised all the individuals and groups of project stakeholders who were able to influence the type of projects being used or could be affected by the projects and their deliverables, as defined by Burke (2007). To help in the identification of all stakeholders, researchers initially categorised the stakeholder groups using the PESTLE method because this method facilitates identification of the important individuals and groups who may otherwise be overlooked (Maley, 2012; Rhodes et al., 2014).
Following the stakeholder identification process semi-structured interviews were held with the individuals or group to discuss the typical stakeholder’s key interests. The stakeholder group selection for this research was limited to twelve individuals. The sample size is tenable because effective final stakeholder listing should consist of between six to 15 different groups or individuals (Bradley 2010). Additionally, representatives from all of the key stakeholder functional departments within the case study organisation were included, as illustrated in Figure 2.
Following the recommendation of the PMBOK® Guide (PMI, 2013), the stakeholder requirements were ranked to determine the most important elements that have the most potential to impact on or support the project’s goals. To provide a more quantifiable ranking metric than the simplistic High-High or Low-Low results, the standard power-interest grid was modified in line with the method proposed by Maley (2012) and the power-interest axis were graded into five divisions. The method adopted for quantifying the project success criteria followed the suggestion put forward by Ackermann and Eden (2011). Figure 2 illustrates how the different organisational functional levels were aligned with the power index.
For the purpose of this research, the final stakeholder listing was filtered to a more manageable level of twelve of the most influential stakeholders and then their requirements further limited to include only those that ranked highly in the power interest assessment, as suggested by Bradley (2010). Only the stakeholder requirement’s that scored 0.4 and above were included in the assessment. Stakeholder success criteria that ranked less than 0.4 were excluded.
The next step of the research encompassed a quantitative experiment used to empirically investigate the effectiveness of using the corporate ERP system SAP-PS. The experiment was conducted within a non-live test database environment running SAP ECC 6.0 with the standard SAP-PS module enabled and configured for project networks. Inputs for the test were developed from the case study example projects and included sample project plans, identified stakeholder requirements and simulated project.
The outputs from the test reported on the standard project performance metrics of time, cost and scope as well as verifying the successfully fulfilment of the stakeholder success criteria used
Figure 2. Stakeholder power ranking index aligned with functional structure. Source: adapted from (Robbins, 2000; Parent and Deephouse, 2007).
for multidimensional project control (Rozenes et al., 2006; Meredith, 2009). The testing process followed the recommendations by Copeland (2004) regarding testing sequence with the sources of information and data as described next.
RESULTS
The analysis was intended to indicate whether the corporate ERP system SAP-PS is effective at monitoring and controlling the standard project control metrics of scope, time and costs, as well as monitoring and controlling other stakeholder success criteria within a MPCS. To this end, a validation test was conducted for each of the stakeholder criteria to determine if the system is capable for monitoring and controlling the requirements as illustrated in Table 2 in the Appendix. A validation score was recorded against each success criteria. When the success criteria could be monitored and controlled within SAP-PS the test recorded a verification indicator against each identified success criteria of δk = 1 (achieved) or δk = 0 (not achieved).
The validations score method used to assess whether the stakeholder success criteria are achieved or not achieved was drawn from the elements of Earned Value Management (EVM) theory, in which the most basic limits for earned value credit criteria are either not complete = 0% or complete = 100% (Rozenes et al., 2004; Burke, 2007). The method of recognition of whether the stakeholder success criteria were successfully achieved or not used in this study originates from the stakeholders’ own definition of what is acceptable to them, in line with arguments by Maley (2012).
The results from the overall test indicated that the majority of the stakeholder success criteria (83%) were capable of being satisfied within SAP-PS. When separated into organisational functional reporting structures the results provide an indication of the functional departments whose requirements are not fully being measured within SAP-PS.
As inferred from the Appendix, the requirements that received a verification indicator of δk = 0 (not achieved) for each or the functional departments showed that there were common requirements not being met. Moreover, the majority of the organisational roles whose requirements were not achieved originated from more senior positions in the organisational structure. Many of the success criteria that failed the verification test did so because the nature of the requirement was too intangible for a computer system to calculate or be configured to control. In contrast, the success criteria that scored a verification indicator of δk = 1 (achieved) are more tangible in nature and thus quantifiable within a computer system (see the Appendix).
The stakeholder needs and requirements analysis illustrated in the Appendix revealed that the most common and significant success criteria within the projects are still deemed the traditional metrics of scope, time, and cost while controlling the traditional metrics are standard features within SAP-PS. Many of the success criteria that require multidimensional integration are common across the different departments and include the multidimensional control points of:
• Procurements planning and control • Plant maintenance integration
• Integration with the plant equipment and material catalogue • Document control
The verification test also confirmed that the majority of the success criteria can be controlled using standard functions in SAP-PS. The multidimensional project control system does however first need the success criteria identified from the stakeholders and then they can be used as inputs into the MPCS configuration and setup. The verification test has identified that the success criteria originating from the subordinate roles within the departmentalised functional hierarchy structure tend to be more tangible and are more easily controlled from the corporate ERP system. The most
significant observation from this analysis is that the uncontrollable success criteria originate from the more senior stakeholder roles within the organisational hierarchy structure mostly because they tend to be intangible in nature, and therefore difficult for a computerised project control system to address.
dISCUSSIoN
During the course of the internal stakeholder engagement process it was observed that the requirements of the more senior positions within the organisational structure tended to be very broad motherhood type statements that are too intangible to effectively define within an ERP system (e.g. “Deliver business benefit over the whole of asset life”). The superior level stakeholder requirements contrasted with the lower levels of the organisational structure where the stakeholder requirements tended to be more specific and tangible (e.g. “All procurements for materials purchased from the system catalogue to retain procurement history”). Being more tangible, the lower level requirements are easily controlled through the ERP system because they can be directly related to a business process and compliance in following the business process can be measured.
The observed difference in requirement levels is consistent with organisational management principles of cascading objectives (Robbins, 2000, p.260). The more senior organisational roles are visionary, concentrating on strategic organisational goals, whereas subordinate roles are more tactical and interested in operational goals (Davidson et al., 2003). It then stands to reason that if the organisation has successful human resources strategies in place, the organisation’s people objectives will be aligned with the broader organisational objectives, and then if the subordinate operational goals are successfully achieved, the higher level organisational goals will also be achieved (Stone, 1998).
For internal projects within a corporate environment the observed data indicated that project stakeholder needs and requirements can be aligned along the organisational functional hierarchy structure. A correlation can then be drawn that by satisfying the more tangible lower level needs and requirements, it should also mean that the higher level needs and requirements can also be satisfied (Stone, 1998; Robbins, 2000; Davidson et al., 2003).
For organisations operating a functional departmentalisation structure, Davidson et al. (2003) suggest that success at the subordinate levels will deliver results for superior levels following the hierarchical functional structure. Taking this observation into consideration, the research level of analysis for this study was redefined to limit the stakeholder identification structure to follow the organisational hierarchical structure. This change provided a clearer systematic understanding of the relationship between the stakeholder success criteria and how the SAP-PS system can be utilised to monitor and control achievement of the success criteria across all levels within the organisational functional structure (Agle and Caldwell, 1999).
The results from the validation test indicate that the system is very capable of monitoring and controlling the tangible stakeholder success criteria as well as the traditional ‘iron triangle’ metrics of scope, time and cost. This observation also suggests that the traditional iron triangle metrics continue to play a key role in measuring project performance for the project practitioner as well as other key stakeholders who have an invested interest in the project.
The common stakeholder requirement for performance metrics reported against scope, time and cost, i.e. Earned Value (EV), puts in question the acceptance of MPCS concepts from Rozenes et al. (2004) and Lauras et al. (2010). Both sources propose MPCS methods where the traditional EV model is replaced by alternative methods for interpreting, evaluating and displaying project performance. Given the level of reliance the profession of project management has developed on the key EV metrics it is probable that any alternative project control methodology that displaces EV may not be very well supported by the project practitioners or other key project stakeholders.
Results from this investigation suggest that the best approach for a successful implementation of MPCS is to fully satisfy the traditional iron triangle metrics and extend the project control dimensions to include a framework for the other stakeholder success criteria that go beyond the traditional EV
performance metrics. This finding is supported by several sources including Toor and Ogunlana (2010), Meredith (2009) and Nicholas (2004).
The validation test conducted as part of this study has confirmed that the majority of the stakeholder success criteria identified can be effectively controlled using standard functions in SAP-PS. The various stakeholder success criteria do however first need to be configured into the controls structure before they can be effectively controlled. Configuration of control dimensions is standard practice in traditional project control methodology. The many sources of project management practice all nominate the process of defining the scope as a work breakdown structure (WBS) and developing the estimate and schedule against the WBS packages (PMI, 2013). Configuring the WBS, estimate and schedule establishes the project control structure for earned value measurement (Burke, 2007).
As an extension to the traditional EV approach for project control establishment, the other control dimensions that form the multidimensional project control points should also be planned and configured into the control structure. Rozenes et al. (2004) advocate such an approach by suggesting the control packages can be configured in a Global Project Control Specifications (GPCS).
Results from the validation test indicated that the corporate ERP system SAP-PS is effective at controlling the success criteria originating from the subordinate roles within functional hierarchy structure because they are more tangible in nature and controllable within a computerised system. The test results also identified a number of uncontrollable stakeholder success criteria which originate from the more senior stakeholder roles within functional hierarchy structure. The uncontrollable success criteria tended to be intangible in nature and difficult for a computerised project control system to address.
The uncontrollable stakeholder success criteria identified during the test were all stakeholder requirements based upon controlling the performance of the project’s finished product to ensure it delivers business benefit for the organisation through to the end of asset life. Measuring project success beyond project closure is an area that has been identified by several sources as being in need of further development. Shenhar et al. (2001) suggests project management is strategically important to organisational performance and the dimensions of project control should extend to controlling project success criteria after the project has been delivered and until end of asset life.
Shenhar et al. (2001) and Cooke-Davies (2002) concur that the dimensions of project control can change through the project life cycle and could extend beyond project close to ensure the project is delivering business benefit over the whole of asset life. This opinion is in contrast to the PMBOK® Guide (PMI 2013), which asserts that the project manager’s responsibility and accountability finishes at the close of the project when the authorised stakeholders accept the final product.
The results from this study indicate that the dimensions of MPCS should extend beyond project handover. The senior position stakeholders rank business benefit and product performance highly as key project success criteria. SAP-PS has been demonstrated effective at controlling many of the stakeholder success criteria during project delivery; however, the system does not appear to support stakeholder requirements that extend beyond project handover.
CoNCLUSIoN
There currently is a lack of project management methodology and tools available to help the project managers control the many dimensions of MPCS within a fully integrated multidimensional business environment. This study suggests that the answer to project control system integration may lay with the latest generation of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems; which are nowadays in common use throughout major global organisations. It could be proffered that the corporate ERP system SAP-PS can be effective at monitoring and controlling the majority of the stakeholder success criteria using standard functions in SAP-PS. Particularly, the system produces the best results when the control integration points are derived from the tangible stakeholder success criteria that can be related back
to project and business processes which are easily configured and analysed within a computerised project control system.
Results from the test also highlighted a range of stakeholder success criteria that the system failed to effectively monitor and control. These were almost entirely originated from the senior managerial roles. It seems that such criteria should be satisfied by following the organisational functional hierarchy structure and developing the control integration points to align with the tactical and more tangible subordinate stakeholder success criteria.
The uncontrollable success criteria originated from stakeholder requirements centred upon monitoring and controlling the performance of the project’s finished product to ensure it delivers business benefit for the organisation through to the end of asset life. Controlling project success beyond project handover is not generally a common practice within the discipline of project management. Many proponents for MPCS believe that project management is strategically important to organisational performance and the dimensions of project control should extend to controlling project success after the project has been delivered and until end of product life.
This study concludes that project success is intrinsically reliant on identifying and prioritising project stakeholder needs and requirements to define the necessary project success criteria. From the outset of the project the project manager should be proactively working with the project stakeholders to identify and manage the project’s key success criteria. Monitoring and controlling the project success criteria within the corporate ERP system will then be achievable as long as the success criteria are tangible enough to be processed within a computerised system.
This investigation offers an insight for practitioners in the industry by providing evidence that the use of the enterprise resource planning system as a project planning and control system is effective and potentially capable of integrating the many project control dimensions required to deliver organisational success, project success and stakeholder satisfaction.
Limitations of the Study
Findings of the study should be exercised in light of some limitations described below.
• The scope of stakeholder identification and needs analysis was limited by using dummy data and hypothetical project scenarios. The study would have benefited from using real project data and expanding the stakeholder engagement process to include a more diverse and larger sample size of project stakeholders both internal and external to the organisation.
• The central analysis technique for the study was dependent on a “black box” validation test, which limited the study’s ability to fully explore the potential of the ERP system in being able to fulfil many of the identified uncontrollable stakeholder success criteria. The black box validation technique limited the study’s ability to customise system configuration and programmatically built extensions to the standard SAP-PS system. Without configuration changes and programmatic extensions, the study could not fully explore many of the mathematical and conceptual MPCS models proposed by other authors.
• The study’s scope limited investigation of MPCS to the project environment. Many of the identified uncontrollable success criteria extend beyond the project environment and represent issues linked to portfolio management and how organisational strategic success is connected to project success. The study would benefit from a broadened scope to include an understanding of how portfolio management plays a role in the alignment of project outcomes with organisational strategy. • The level of projects being assessed during this research did not warrant consideration of the external
stakeholders. This is because the projects were technical in nature, with little significance to other stakeholders outside of the organisation. In situations where the project manager is identifying stakeholders for politically, economically, environmentally or socially important projects the relevance of the external stakeholders could rank significantly within the stakeholder identification process and warrant inclusion in the assessment (Parent and Deephouse, 2007). The needs and
requirements of the external stakeholders should then be included in the multidimensional project controls structure.
FURTHER RESEARCH
Recommendations for further research resulting from the limitation of the present study are as follows: • Extending the concept of MPCS within the corporate ERP system to include the external stakeholder
success dimensions.
• Determine the effectiveness of using SAP-PS as a MPCS on large and mega scale projects with a much greater range of project stakeholder success criteria, such as in public sector projects. • Further investigate applications of MPCS that include the vectorised mathematical evaluation of
project progress performance and forecasting. Rozenes et al. (2004) and Lauras et al. (2010) both propose MPCS methodologies worthy of further assessment with a view to integrating the methodology into the corporate ERP system.
• Investigate the methodology of extending MPCS beyond the project handover point to help monitor and control project success criteria based on ensuring the project delivers the promised benefit to the business until the end of product life. ERP systems provide the right environment for this type of assessment because the original project business case, the project implementation expenditure data and whole of asset life management information is all contained within the centralised ERP database.
ACKNowLEdGMENT
The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and the editor for their insightful comments and suggestions.
REFERENCES
Ackermann, F., & Eden, C. (2011). Strategic Management of Stakeholders: Theory and Practice. Long Range Planning, 44(3), 179–196. doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2010.08.001
Agle, B. R., & Caldwell, C. B. (1999). Understanding research on values in business. Business & Society, 38(3), 326–387. doi:10.1177/000765039903800305
Amaratunga, D., Baldry, D., Sarshar, M., & Newton, R. (2002). Quantitative and qualitative research in the built environment: Application of “mixed” research approach. Work Study, 51(1), 17–31. doi:10.1108/00438020210415488
Andera, F. J. C., Weirich, T. R., & Worster, A. J. (2012). Maximizing Return on Investment Using ERP Applications. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
Annamalai, C., & Ramayah, T. (2011). Enterprise resource planning (ERP) benefits survey of Indian manufacturing firms: An empirical analysis of SAP versus Oracle package. Business Process Management Journal, 17(3), 495–509. doi:10.1108/14637151111136388
Argyropoulou, M., Ioannou, G., Koufopoulos, D. N., & Motwani, J. (2011). ‘The ‘Six Imperatives’ Framework for the evaluation of an ERP Project’, Handbook of Research in Enterprise Systems (pp. 161–176). New Delhi, India Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE Publications India Pvt Ltd. doi:10.4135/9781446270257.n10
Bendoly, E., Kumar, S., & Esteves, J. (2011). Handbook of research in enterprise systems. New Delhi, India, Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications India Pvt Ltd.
Borrego, M., Douglas, E. P., & Amelink, C. T. (2009). Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Research Methods in Engineering Education. The Journal of Engineering Education, 98(1), 53–66. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2009. tb01005.x
Bradley, G. (2010). Benefit Realisation Management: A Practical Guide to Achieving Benefits Through Change (2nd ed.). Farnham, Surrey, GBR: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
Budd, C. I., & Budd, C. S. (2010). A Practical Guide to Earned Value Project Management. Vienna, VA: Management Concepts.
Burke, R. (2007), Project management techniques (College ed.). United States: Burke Publishing.
Cheung, K. K. W., Cheung, S. O., & Suen, H. C. H. (2004). PPMS: A Web-based construction Project Performance Monitoring System. Automation in Construction, 13(3), 361–376. doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2003.12.001
Cooke-Davies, T. (2002). The “real” success factors on projects. International Journal of Project Management,
20(3), 185–190. doi:10.1016/S0263-7863(01)00067-9
Copeland, L. (2004). A practitioner’s guide to software test design. Boston, Mass.; London, Norwood: Artech House.
Creswell, J. W. (2003), Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage Publications.
Davidson, P., Griffin, R. W., & French, E. (2003). Management: an Australasian perspective (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
De Marco, A., & Narbaev, T. (2013). Earned value-based performance monitoring of facility construction projects. Journal of Facilities Management, 11(1), 69–80. doi:10.1108/14725961311301475
Dowling, K. (2008). SAP® Project System Handbook. United States: McGraw-Hill Osborne Media. Essex, D. E. (2005). Spreading the portfolio management mantra. PM Network, 19(12), 62. Franz, M. (2009). Project Management with SAP Project System. US: SAP Press.
Hazır, Ö. (2014). A review of analytical models, approaches and decision support tools in project monitoring and control. International Journal of Project Management.
Henderson, H. (2009). Encyclopedia of Computer Science and Technology. New York: Facts On File. Jepsen, A. L., & Eskerod, P. (2013). Project stakeholder management (New edition ed.). Burlington, VT, USA: Gower.
Kim, S., Son, J., Park, C., & Lee, S. (2008). Integrated cost and schedule control in the Korean construction industry based on a modified work-packaging model. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 35(3), 225–235. doi:10.1139/L07-094
Lau, L. K. (2005). An Overview of SAP Technology. In Managing Business with SAP: Planning Implementation and Evaluation (pp. 33–43). Hershey, PA, USA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-59140-378-4.ch002
Lauras, M., Marques, G., & Gourc, D. (2010). Towards a multi-dimensional project Performance Measurement System. Decision Support Systems, 48(2), 342–353. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2009.09.002
Lv, F., & Chen, J. (2010). Influencing factors on ERP system selection. IEEE.
Maley,C.H.(2012). Project Initiation. In ESI International Project Management: Project Management Concepts, Methods, and Techniques (p. 462). CRC Press.
Mantel, S. J., Meredith, J. R., Shafer, S. M., & Sutton, M. M. (2005). The world of project management. In S.J. Mantel (Ed.), Project management in practice (2nd ed., pp. 1-37). Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons. Meredith, J. R. (2009). Project management: a managerial approach (7th ed.). Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley. Modi, S. B., & Mabert, V. A. (2011). The Enterprise Systems Industry Landscape. In E. Bendoly, S. Kumar, & J. Esteves (Eds.), Handbook of research in enterprise systems (p. 323). New Delhi, India: SAGE Publications India Pvt Ltd. doi:10.4135/9781446270257.n2
Nicholas, J. M. (2004). Project Management for Business and Engineering: Principles and Practice. Burlington: Taylor & Francis.
Parent, M. M., & Deephouse, D. L. (2007). A Case Study of Stakeholder Identification and Prioritization by Managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 75(1), 1–23. doi:10.1007/s10551-007-9533-y
PMI. (2013), A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK guide) (5th ed.). Newtown Square, PA, USA: Project Management Institute, Inc.
Rhodes, J., Bergstrom, B., Lok, P., & Cheng, V. (2014). A framework for stakeholder engagement and sustainable development in MNCs. Journal of Global Responsibility, 5(1), 82–103.
Robbins, S. P. (2000). Management (2nd ed.). Sydney, Australia: Prentice Hall.
Robert Jacobs, F., & ‘Ted’ Weston, F. C. Jr. (2007). Enterprise resource planning (ERP)—A brief history. Journal of Operations Management, 25(2), 357–363. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2006.11.005
Rozenes, S., Vitner, G., & Spraggett, S. (2004). MPCS: Multidimensional Project Control System. International Journal of Project Management, 22(2), 109–118. doi:10.1016/S0263-7863(03)00002-4
Rozenes, S., Vitner, G., & Spraggett, S. (2006). Project control: literature review. Project Management Journal,
37(4), 5–14.
Shenhar, A. J., Dvir, D., Levy, O., & Maltz, A. C. (2001). Project Success: A Multidimensional Strategic Concept.
Long Range Planning, 34(6), 699–725. doi:10.1016/S0024-6301(01)00097-8
Smyrlis, L. (2008). get on the same page. Canadian Transportation Logistics, 111(9), 12-14.
Songer, A. D., Hays, B., & North, C. (2004). Multidimensional visualization of project control data. Construction Innovation, 4(3), 173–190. doi:10.1108/14714170410815088
Stone, R. J. (1998). Human resource management (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Toor, S-u-R & Ogunlana, SO. (2010). Beyond the ‘iron triangle’: Stakeholder perception of key performance indicators (KPIs) for large-scale public sector development projects. International Journal of Project Management, 28(3), 228-236.
Tribelsky, E., & Sacks, R. (2011). An Empirical Study of Information Flows in Multidisciplinary Civil Engineering Design Teams using Lean Measures. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 7(2), 85–101. doi:1 0.1080/17452007.2011.582332
Usmanij, P., Khosla, R., & Chu, M.-T. (2013). Successful product or successful system? User satisfaction measurement of ERP software. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 24(6), 1131–1144. doi:10.1007/s10845-012-0645-6
Verschuren, P. (2003). Case study as a research strategy: Some ambiguities and opportunities. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 6(2), 121–139. doi:10.1080/13645570110106154
Yang, C., & Su, Y.-. (2009). The relationship between benefits of ERP systems implementation and its impacts on firm performance of SCM. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 22(6), 722–752. doi:10.1108/17410390910999602
Brett Machen is a project controls professional with many years of experience working as a program and project controller within the built environment, industrial engineering and resources sectors. Brett holds a Masters in Project Management and a Bachelors in Engineering Technology and he is also undertaking a Master’s in Business Informatics. Brett currently works as a senior project manager for a consulting engineering and project delivery business. His specialist knowledge area is in developing, implementing and operating multidimensional project control systems that fully integrate with the business’ enterprise environment to provide business managers and project managers with the analysis, visibility, systems and tools necessary to make informed decisions and consistently achieve organisational success, project success and stakeholder satisfaction.
M. Reza Hosseini is currently a lecturer in Construction Management at Deakin University. He is a Civil Engineer and has an MSc in Construction Management. He completed his PhD at the University of South Australia and his main research fields are virtual design and construction, virtual team working, and collaboration in Building Information Modelling (BIM). He has been a member of the board of directors for Project Management Institute (PMI) Adelaide chapter and a member of Australian Institute of Building (AIB), Australian Institute of Project Management (AIPM) and buildingSMART Australia.
Anthony Wood is a project manager with many years of experience in a range of sectors. He has consulted in statutory authority and local government organisations and has taught post-graduate classes in project management to many hundreds of university students locally, on-line, and overseas. Anthony is also undertaking a PhD in Project Management, in which he is researching factors that drive effective deployment of Project Management Offices (PMOs) in Australia. Anthony is particularly interested in the interface between the worlds of theory and practice, and is always looking to find ways to bridge the gap between the two perspectives. Anthony is a Certified Practicing Project Director, a Graduate Member of the Australian Institute of Company Directors and President of the SA Chapter of the Australian Institute of Project Management.
Javad Bakhshi is a research student at the University of Adelaide. He holds a Bachelor in Industrial Management from the Qazvin Azad University (QIAU, Iran), a Master in Industrial Management concentrations on Operations Management from the (QIAU, Iran) and a Master of Philosophy in Complex Project Management from the University of Adelaide (Australia). He has worked in a number of companies, mainly in project and quality management, business process management and quality standards. He has written several articles in peer-reviewed journals, including International Journal of Project Management, Business Process Management Journal, Knowledge Management Journal, Management Researches Journal, and Iranian Journal of Management Sciences.
APPENdIX
Table 2. Verification test results for δk = 0 (not achieved) δk = 1 (achieved)
No. Department Role Stakeholder Requirements Success
Factor δk
3 Programme Programme Manager Single source of information used “One truth” Projects planned and executed
in SAP 0.64 0
5 Programme Programme Manager Stakeholder needs and requirements effectively identified and managed 0.8 0
7 Programme Project Manager Project product functions according to original criteria 0.6 0
12 Programme Project Manager Clear KPIs identified at start of the project. Stakeholder success criteria clearly
identified 0.48 0
23 Finance Finance Manager Project delivers benefit over whole of project life. Project exists beyond implementation. Project needs to be assessed for benefit delivery until end of asset life.
0.48 0
24 Finance Finance Manager Project adds value to the business according to original promise (e.g.
productivity, safety, regulatory) 0.4 0
47 Production Plant Manager Estimating to liberal, too much contingency on original estimate 0.8 0
48 Production Plant Manager Warranty period on projects group 0.8 0
52 Production Plant Manager Original criteria / idea delivered. Project product is fit for purpose and delivers
original promise 0.64 0
55 Production Plant Manager Construction, implementation and training delivered efficiently 0.48 0
60 Production Superintendent Perform the role of commissioning manager 0.6 0
1 Programme Programme Manager Project process flow correctly followed 0.8 1
2 Programme Programme Manager Schedule, budget and resources effectively planned and managed 0.8 1
4 Programme Programme Manager Projects planned and executed down to the package level 0.64 1
6 Programme Project Manager Effective time, scope and cost control 0.6 1
8 Programme Project Manager Clear expectation around iron triangle Time- Cost - Scope 0.6 1
9 Programme Project Manager Clear timing of critical milestones (non-project) e.g. shutdown timing 0.6 1
10 Programme Project Manager Project planned. Accurate project forecasts 0.6 1
11 Programme Project Manager Easy effective tools for project planning, monitoring and control. 0.6 1
13 Programme Project Engineer Meeting minutes approvals. Ensure all mods are approved and signed off prior
to implementation 0.4 1
14 Programme Project Engineer Mods design and process needs to start as early as possible and continue up to
implementation. 0.4 1
15 Programme Project Engineer System simplifies procurement process 0.4 1
16 Finance Finance Manager Accurate materials catalogue 0.8 1
17 Finance Finance Manager Capitalised asset register 0.8 1
18 Finance Finance Manager Visibility on all project expenditure (No hidden stock) 0.8 1
19 Finance Finance Manager Components procured through materials catalogue 0.8 1
20 Finance Finance Manager Budget respected. Time and cost 0.64 1
21 Finance Finance Manager Good schedule, budget, estimate control 0.64 1
22 Finance Finance Manager Accurate stock valuation 0.64 1
25 Finance Accountant Budget is respected 0.48 1
26 Finance Accountant Planned project commitments. Control on committed costs should be managed in
accordance with business needs i.e. deferred or accelerated depending in response to business cash flow needs
0.48 1
27 Finance Purchasing Officer All procurements effectively planned 0.4 1
28 Finance Purchasing Officer Minimised rework on purchase orders 0.4 1
29 Finance Purchasing Officer Requisition transparency 0.4 1
30 Finance Purchasing Officer Stores must goods receipt all components (no services used to purchase
components) 0.4 1
31 Finance Purchasing Officer Materials master data used strategically to deliver maximised value for the
business 0.4 1
32 Maintenance Maintenance
Manager Turn around and outage integration. Clear visibility through the plant maintenance system on all projects being executed within scheduled plant maintenance turnaround and shutdowns
0.8 1
33 Maintenance Maintenance
