|
on Project, Program and Portfolio Management |
| By: | Li Zheng (LAAS-ISI - Équipe Ingénierie Système et Intégration - LAAS - Laboratoire d'analyse et d'architecture des systèmes [Toulouse] - INP - Institut National Polytechnique [Toulouse] - INSA Toulouse - Institut National des Sciences Appliquées - Toulouse - UPS - Université Paul Sabatier - Toulouse 3 - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique); Claude Baron (LAAS-ISI - Équipe Ingénierie Système et Intégration - LAAS - Laboratoire d'analyse et d'architecture des systèmes [Toulouse] - INP - Institut National Polytechnique [Toulouse] - INSA Toulouse - Institut National des Sciences Appliquées - Toulouse - UPS - Université Paul Sabatier - Toulouse 3 - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique); Philippe Esteban (LAAS-ISI - Équipe Ingénierie Système et Intégration - LAAS - Laboratoire d'analyse et d'architecture des systèmes [Toulouse] - INP - Institut National Polytechnique [Toulouse] - INSA Toulouse - Institut National des Sciences Appliquées - Toulouse - UPS - Université Paul Sabatier - Toulouse 3 - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique); Rui Xue (LAAS-ISI - Équipe Ingénierie Système et Intégration - LAAS - Laboratoire d'analyse et d'architecture des systèmes [Toulouse] - INP - Institut National Polytechnique [Toulouse] - INSA Toulouse - Institut National des Sciences Appliquées - Toulouse - UPS - Université Paul Sabatier - Toulouse 3 - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique); Qiang Zhang (L2E - Laboratoire d'Electronique et Electromagnétisme - UPMC - Université Pierre et Marie Curie - Paris 6) |
| Abstract: | A wide range of methods and good practices have been developed for the measurement of projects performance. They help project managers to effectively monitor the project progress and evaluate results. However, from a literature review, we noticed several remaining critical issues in measuring projects performance, such as an unbalanced development of Key Performance Indicators types between lagging and leading indicators. On the other hand, systems engineering measurement is a more recent discipline with practices and theories that appeared with the emergence of the systems engineering discipline; however, this discipline offers very deep developments, published in several standards and guides. In particular, systems engineering measurement does not only manipulate lagging indicators, useful to track how things are going, but defines methods to promote leading indicators, used as precursors to the direction the engineering is going. Indeed, 18 leading indicators were recently proposed, validated, and finally engineered in a practical guidance. The objective of this paper being to improve project performance and success rate, one mean is to improve the measurement of projects performance by enriching its leading indicators, on which decisions rely on project management. To reach this goal, we propose to refine and extend the performance measurement activities in the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBoK version 5) by considering systems engineering measurement. This paper thus considers transferring and adapting the good practices in systems engineering measurement such as described in systems engineering guides as well as the set of systems engineering leading indicators to the well-defined project management processes in PMBoK. To this effect, we propose a methodology resulting in a framework to explore this integration. This way, systems engineering leading indicators can be applied to project performance measurement, thus providing project managers with a wider set of leading indicators and straightforward measurement techniques. |
| Keywords: | projects performance,systems engineering measurement,leading indicators,lagging indicators |
| Date: | 2017–12–28 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hal:journl:hal-01709535&r=ppm |
| By: | Li Zheng (LAAS-ISI - Équipe Ingénierie Système et Intégration - LAAS - Laboratoire d'analyse et d'architecture des systèmes [Toulouse] - INP - Institut National Polytechnique [Toulouse] - INSA Toulouse - Institut National des Sciences Appliquées - Toulouse - UPS - Université Paul Sabatier - Toulouse 3 - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique); Claude Baron (LESIA-INSA - Laboratoire d'Étude des Systèmes Informatiques et Automatiques - INSA - Institut National des Sciences Appliquées, LAAS-ISI - Équipe Ingénierie Système et Intégration - LAAS - Laboratoire d'analyse et d'architecture des systèmes [Toulouse] - INP - Institut National Polytechnique [Toulouse] - INSA Toulouse - Institut National des Sciences Appliquées - Toulouse - UPS - Université Paul Sabatier - Toulouse 3 - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique); Philippe Esteban (LAAS-ISI - Équipe Ingénierie Système et Intégration - LAAS - Laboratoire d'analyse et d'architecture des systèmes [Toulouse] - INP - Institut National Polytechnique [Toulouse] - INSA Toulouse - Institut National des Sciences Appliquées - Toulouse - UPS - Université Paul Sabatier - Toulouse 3 - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique); Rui Xue (Beijing University of Technology); Qiang Zhang (HFUT - Hefei University of Technology) |
| Abstract: | Project performance measurement helps monitoring and controlling project processes, and thus improves project outcomes based on a set of indicators, typically lagging and leading indicators. Lagging indicators provide a comprehensive view on project health outcomes. Leading indicators are complementary; they can be used in a proactive way to enable companies to take corrective actions before performance decreases. But applying leading indicators on project management is not well developed because these indicators are difficult to be elaborated and interpreted. However, [Roedler et al., 2010] provided a great contribution to the state of art with a set of 18 leading indicators in the large domain of Systems Engineering. A deep analysis of literature also showed that some specific field of application, such as Civil Engineering, independently developed their own set of leading indicators. This paper thus analyzes and compares both sets of leading indicators in Systems Engineering and in Civil Engineering to point out similarities and differences, and to evaluate whether leading indicators defined in a field could be adapted to the other, with the goal to improve performance measurement by extending the current scope and structure of indicators. Mots clés-indicateurs avancés, Ingénierie Système, industrie du bâtiment, mesure de la performance de projet. |
| Abstract: | La mesure de la performance de projet contribue à la surveillance et au contrôle des processus du projet, améliorant ainsi le résultat du projet en se basant sur un ensemble d'indicateurs, typiquement des indicateurs d'état et des indicateurs avancés. Les indicateurs d'état fournissent une vue d'ensemble des résultats sur la santé du projet. Les indicateurs avancés sont complémentaires; ils peuvent être utilisés de manière proactive pour permettre aux entreprises de prendre des mesures correctives avant que les performances diminuent. Mais les indicateurs avancés dans la gestion de projet est peu développée car ces indicateurs sont difficiles à interpréter. Cependant, [Roedler et al., 2010] ont fourni une contribution avec un ensemble de 18 indicateurs avancés, dans le domaine de l'Ingénierie Système. Une analyse approfondie de la littérature a également montré que certains champs d'application spécifiques, tels que le Génie Civil, ont développé leur propre ensemble d'indicateurs avancés. Ainsi, cet article analyse et compare les deux ensembles d'indicateurs avancés en Ingénierie Système et en Génie Civil, pour évaluer si les indicateurs avancés définis dans un domaine pourraient être adaptés à l'autre, dans le but d'améliorer la mesure de la performance en étendant la portée et la structure actuelles des indicateurs. |
| Keywords: | leading indicators,systems engineering,construction industry,project performance measurement,indicateurs avancés,Ingénierie Système,industrie du bâtiment,mesure de la performance de projet |
| Date: | 2017–05–03 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hal:journl:hal-01709556&r=ppm |
| By: | Li Zheng (LAAS-ISI - Équipe Ingénierie Système et Intégration - LAAS - Laboratoire d'analyse et d'architecture des systèmes [Toulouse] - INP - Institut National Polytechnique [Toulouse] - INSA Toulouse - Institut National des Sciences Appliquées - Toulouse - UPS - Université Paul Sabatier - Toulouse 3 - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique); Claude Baron (LAAS-ISI - Équipe Ingénierie Système et Intégration - LAAS - Laboratoire d'analyse et d'architecture des systèmes [Toulouse] - INP - Institut National Polytechnique [Toulouse] - INSA Toulouse - Institut National des Sciences Appliquées - Toulouse - UPS - Université Paul Sabatier - Toulouse 3 - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique); Philippe Esteban (LAAS-ISI - Équipe Ingénierie Système et Intégration - LAAS - Laboratoire d'analyse et d'architecture des systèmes [Toulouse] - INP - Institut National Polytechnique [Toulouse] - INSA Toulouse - Institut National des Sciences Appliquées - Toulouse - UPS - Université Paul Sabatier - Toulouse 3 - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique); Rui Xue (LAAS-ISI - Équipe Ingénierie Système et Intégration - LAAS - Laboratoire d'analyse et d'architecture des systèmes [Toulouse] - INP - Institut National Polytechnique [Toulouse] - INSA Toulouse - Institut National des Sciences Appliquées - Toulouse - UPS - Université Paul Sabatier - Toulouse 3 - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique); Qiang Zhang (L2E - Laboratoire d'Electronique et Electromagnétisme - UPMC - Université Pierre et Marie Curie - Paris 6) |
| Abstract: | With a long history in project management practices, project performance measurement (PPM) offers a wide range of methods and good practices which help project managers to effectively monitor the project and evaluate project progress and results. However, several critical issues remain, such as an unbalanced development of KPIs types or a limited availability of leading Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). On the other hand, systems engineering measurement (SEM) is a more recent discipline, with practices and theories that appeared with the emergence of the systems engineering discipline. Moreover, SEM has been much more developed with some practical research results published in several standards and guides. In particular, SEM does not only use lagging indicators, used to track how things are going but defines methods to promote leading indicators, used as precursors to the direction where the engineering is going; indeed, 18 leading indicators (LIs) were recently proposed, validated, and finally engineered in a practical guidance. Our goal being to improve project performance and success rate, one mean is to improve the project performance measurement, on which decisions rely for project management. To achieve this goal, this paper proposes to extend the project performance measurement of indicators by considering how performance is measured in systems engineering. |
| Keywords: | performance measurement,leading indicators,lagging indicators,KPIs |
| Date: | 2017–07–14 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hal:journl:hal-01710579&r=ppm |
| By: | Marion Real (ESTIA Recherche - Ecole Supérieure des Technologies Industrielles Avancées (ESTIA)); Jean Michel Larrasquet (ESTIA Recherche - Ecole Supérieure des Technologies Industrielles Avancées (ESTIA)); Iban Lizarralde (ESTIA Recherche - Ecole Supérieure des Technologies Industrielles Avancées (ESTIA)) |
| Abstract: | In this chapter, we discuss what the theory of complexity can bring to the construction of territorial transitions toward circular economy. We will first revisit the dynamism of territories within their cultural angle, highlighting the complexity of their metabolisms and the importance of a design with intent. Then, we will introduce in the key notions of the complexity theory, mainly based on Edgar Morini’s philosophy, underlying new attitudes and modes of governance for research and projects’ design: the notion of system, dialogy and emergence will be described. As a conclusion, we will propose notes to pay attention to the Retrace project and the use of the systemic design methodology. |
| Keywords: | complexity, systemic, territory, circular economy |
| Date: | 2017–09 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hal:journl:hal-01703947&r=ppm |