Collaborative Project Management: A Systemic ... - Springer Link

Syst Pract Action Res (2014) 27:141–164 DOI 10.1007/s11213-012-9261-9 ORIGINAL PAPER

Collaborative Project Management: A Systemic Approach to Heavy Equipment Manufacturing Project Management Zhitao Xu • X. G. Ming • Wenyan Song • Lina He • Miao Li

Published online: 12 December 2012 Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Abstract Quite often over the last decade, heavy equipment manufacturers are trying to improve their project management performance with the use of effective project management methods. However, the challenges encountered aren’t isolated problems and a systemic approach is required. This paper exemplifies how a systemic approach can be applied to heavy equipment manufacturing project (HEMP) management, through of a multifaceted vision. The findings present in the paper are based on a two-year case study in a metallurgic equipment manufacturing enterprise in China. Based on the analysis of HEMP management problems and the contributions on systemic approach application in project management, the paper enriches existing theory by: (1) interpreting the HEMP management system with the top-down disassembly method; (2) developing the collaborative project management approach with a systems view highlighting the project characteristics management and inter-departmental collaboration; (3) making suggestions for systemic approach application in project management. For practitioners and researchers, the findings are particularly meaningful for manufacturing project management and systemic approach application. Keywords Collaborative project management Systemic approach Manufacturing project management Inter-departmental collaboration Abbreviations CPM Collaborative project management PBS Product breakdown structure WBS Work breakdown structure Z. Xu X. G. Ming W. Song L. He M. Li Shanghai Research Center for Industrial Informatics, CIM Institute, School of Mechanical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 800 Dongchuan Road, Minhang District, Shanghai 200240, People’s Republic of China X. G. Ming (&) Institute of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, School of Mechanical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao University, Dongchuan Road 800, Minhang District, Shanghai 200240, People’s Republic of China e-mail: [email protected]

123

142

OBS HEMP PMO

Syst Pract Action Res (2014) 27:141–164

Organizational structure Heavy equipment manufacturing project Project management office

Introduction Heavy equipment refers to large and complex industrial products, such as mining equipment and construction equipment. Manufacturing project is the production mode of heavy equipment (Zhao and Hou 2010). The heavy equipment manufacturing project (HEMP) is characterized by one-piece or very small amount of production with expensive design costs and long time for preparation. The manufacturer is engaged in design, production and other activities based on customer orders, coupled with customer participating in the whole process (Shui-li et al. 2011). In the last few years, heavy equipment manufacturing firms have faced unprecedented demands for low cost, high quality, flexible delivery, and high customer satisfaction. Given these challenges, manufacturers are trying to improve their project management performance with the use of advanced techniques. However, the failure to distinguish the project from others of the same kind of equipment and the poor inter-departmental collaboration has been the main obstacles to a successful project. This research exemplifies how a systemic approach can be applied to HEMP management to address the challenges. Based on the analysis of HEMP management problems and the contributions on systemic approach application in project management, the paper developed the collaborative project management (CPM) approach with a systems view emphasizing the project characteristics management and inter-departmental collaboration by establishing the relationship between the product breakdown structure (PBS), work breakdown structure (WBS), and the organizational breakdown structure (OBS). In order to introduce the CPM approach explicitly, the case study method is adopted and the rest of this article is organized as follows: The next section gives a brief overview on systemic approach to project management and CPM. In ‘‘Research method’’ section, the research method and techniques are introduced. ‘‘Research results’’ section presents the results obtained in the case study. ‘‘An illustrative case: the calcination travelling crane manufacturing project’’ section demonstrates the application of the CPM approach. In ‘‘Summary and discussions’’ section, the main findings are summarized, discussed and linked back to the literature. The article ends with some conclusions and suggestions for practitioners and researchers.

Literature Review Systemic Approach to Project Management Within the context of the application of systemic approach to project management, the importance of systems thinking has been recognized and a wide range of studies have taken place. When it comes to assess the health of large projects or programs, Jaafari (2007) pointed out that on a sick project there was no systemic approach and the project team functioned in a haphazard manner while on a healthy project the project team has a systems’ approach to the management of the project variables. Bell and Christina (2006)

123


143

studied the use of systemic methods in the planning of complex projects within the National Health Service. The soft system methodology is adopted for project management because of the advantages of credibility in coping with complex social or people based situations (Morris 2002; Checkland and Winter 2006). A systems approach to the management of project intervention processes has been developed by Gunawardena and Brown (2007) in the vocational technical education sector of developing Asian countries. As to different project management applications, project risk management has received great attention. Kindinger (2002) provided an overview of how the system analysis approach for project risk management was used at Los Alamos National Laboratory. With a systems view, Love et al. (2011) developed a conceptual model of the underlying conditions that contributed to design errors in social infrastructure projects. The cybernetics risk influence diagramming technique was adopted by Vinnakota (2011) to facilitate the understanding on how to identify project risks by considering project as a system. For project success, it is essential to get buy-in from all stakeholders involved directly or indirectly. Alladi and Vadari (2011) explored how to identify all stakeholders and get their concurrence systemically with the use of a holistic stakeholder matrix. Otherwise, systemic approach was also applied by Rego and de Sa Carvalho (1995) for analysis and observations of complex situations in R&D projects by emphasizing the study of qualitative multidimensional relationships between systems and subsystems. However, the systemic project management practice is full of challenges. Drechsler et al. (2010) stated there were three main barriers to the application: (1) the necessity of integration into existing project management frameworks; (2) to overcome influences from personal habits of every member of the project team and the culture of the enterprise, team and profession; (3) systemic approach is a certain vagueness regarding terms and definitions as well as the necessity to apply and tailor the general principles to the specific circumstances. All these previous researches show strong evidence that appropriate systemic approach application can generate useful engineering solutions for project management. However, the literature review reveals the absence of systems thinking in manufacturing project management and ignores how to achieve a perfect project management in operation considering the interaction of the subsystems. Collaborative Project Management CPM is a widely spread approach for better dealing with those complex manufacturing. Cirella et al. (2011) defined the collaboration as ‘‘active involvement of managers and researchers in the framing of the research agenda, the selection and pursuit of methods and the development of implications for action’’. Four modes of collaboration are identified and can be grouped as follows: face-to-face collaboration, asynchronous collaboration, synchronous distributed collaboration and asynchronous distributed collaboration (Anumba et al. 2002). Chen et al. (2003) developed the hierarchy of collaboration, which is defined as collected work, coordinated collaborative work, and concerted collaborative work. The researches introduce the different levels of collaboration but discuss little the way to achieve the collaboration. Traditionally, researches lay a lot of emphasis on the collaboration between different companies. Wang et al. (2008) discussed how to collaborate with supplier in new product development and developed a collaborative work model. Since the collaboration is an information-intensive process involving diverse project partners, it is evident that the information technology has wide applications (Niebecker et al. 2010; Wanshan et al. 2009). A prototype web-based platform for managing collaborative product development projects within an extended enterprise environment was developed by Huang

123

144


et al. (2001). Unfortunately, the fact ignored is that the collaboration mechanism is the basis to explore the potential benefits of any information system. Since the problems on the external side are hard to manage and time-consuming (Terciyanli et al. 2007), one of the solutions is to pay more attention to inter-departmental collaboration. However, although hot research topic as the CPM is, few studies has started to explore the issue of inter-departmental collaboration for a single project management in a multi-project environment, which was defined as a setting in which more than one project is carried out at the same time by Fricke and Shenbar (2000). Otherwise, Fricke and Shenbar (2000) pointed out the importance of a clear understanding of basic similarities and differences between the projects of the same kind of equipment, but the research is without further investigation.

Research Method The research methodology is necessary to a reliable research result by providing approved research strategies (Robson 2002). Overall, the research methodology aims to offer answers to the research questions by building up the theoretical ground and providing guidelines for the study. The research method employed in the paper is case study with multiple embedded units of analysis (Yin 2008). A case study is exploratory in nature, based on interviews and relied heavily on verbal reports and unobtrusive observation as data sources (Love et al. 2011). It contains no greater bias toward verification of the researcher’s preconceived notions than other methods of inquiry (Flyvbjerg 2006). In order to ensure the solution put forward meet the special requirement of HEMP management, the findings presented in the paper are based on a 2-year case study in a metallurgic equipment manufacturing enterprise which has three thousand employees and two hundred million dollars annual revenue in China. Following to the process recommended by George and Bennett (2005), the case study in the research consists of three phases: designing case study, carrying out the case study, and drawing the findings and implications. In the first phase, the complexity of the problems in HEMP management is recognized. The issue is formulated as a project management problem instead of an order fulfillment or manufacturing issue. The main purpose of the case study is to examine the validity of the systemic approach in HEMP management, and if it’s applicable, how to apply it to HEMP management. The actual research technique embodies interviews, documentary analysis, and literature review. Original questionnaires are designed, delivered, taken back for a better understanding of the subject after a short field survey. In the phase of carrying out the case study, the data collection and the preliminary analysis proceed simultaneously because the ongoing findings affect what types of data are collected and how they are collected (Suter 2012). To understand a complex phenomenon, you must consider the multiple ‘‘realities’’ experienced by the participants themselves-the ‘‘insider’’ perspectives (Suter 2012). Firstly, as a non-structured method, narrative interviews provide interviewees with an opportunity to assume an active role in which interviewees not only provide the interviewer with answers but also decide on the topics they would like to discuss (Kocher et al. 2011). The interviews are as long as 220 h including with the main suppliers and customers so as to ensure that all perspectives of a broad range of participants could be heard. The interviews focus on the main problems of the quality, schedule and cost as well as other project management applications in the major process concerning the input, output and operation. The valuable improvement suggestions gathered from the interviewees contribute to the CPM approach development. Secondly,

123


145

documentary analysis is helpful to identify the problems and performance of the project management more objectively (Prior 2003). Documents are collected and analyzed according to different projects and compared with other projects of the same kind of equipment. The relevant documents include reports and records on quality, cost and schedule of different project life-cycles as well as other vital project management materials. The documents investigated cover 25 completed projects and over sixteen on-line projects. Finally, besides the empirical data collation, plenty of literature reviews are conducted, some of which give a better understanding of the terminology of the topic and make a great contribution to the CPM approach and systemic approach application, especially to the findings and the discussions. The existing theory and practice principles of case study and systemic approach provide instructions for the research. Furthermore, the research benefits from the attendance of more than 37 project management meetings, including all the project review meetings of nine projects of the three main kinds of equipment in the case study enterprise. In the third phase, the qualitative data obtained is analyzed, the CPM approach is developed, and the implications for systemic approach application in project management are discussed. Qualitative research method is founded on an understanding of research as a systematic and reflective process for development of knowledge that can somehow be contested and shared (Malterud 2001). It’s useful to analyze, summarize and extract the subjective experiences of experts and knowledge accumulated within complex environment (Kessler 2007). In order to uncover the elements and their relations in HEMP management, an analytic framework is adopted for data analysis, as shown in Table 1. The analytic framework can be described as the process function: Y ¼ FðXÞ and yi ¼ fiðxiÞ X/xi is the input of a process. F/fi is the stage and operation. Y/yi is the output of the process. Otherwise, each main process, such as marketing, also can be divided into several sub-processes with the function. The qualitative data, collected both before the development of the CPM approach and after its application, is filtered and demonstrated

Table 1 The analytic framework for data process Marketing

Design

Purchase

Manufacture

Logistics

Installment and consignment

After-sale service

Financial settlement

y1

Y2

y3

y4

y5

y6

y7

y8

f1

F2

f3

f4

f5

f6

f7

f8

x1

X2

X3

x4

x5

x6

X7

x8

X/xi

F/fi

Man

The stage and operation of the process

Machine

Y/yi S: Schedule Q: Quality

Material Method

C: Cost

Environment Measurement

123

146


by the process function concentrating on problems and major reasons, suggestions, and measurements as well as other aspects.

Research Results Analyzing Requirement of Heavy Equipment Manufacturing Project Management Issues of Heavy Equipment Manufacturing Project Management In general, a manufacturer provides the deliverable to customers when the equipment is fully installed and tested in a ready-to-use condition in the appointed site. According to the investigation in the case study company and the literature review, the issues of HEMP are summarized as follows, but not limited to: • The structure of heavy equipment is complex. Repeated quality problem is one of the main reasons leading to the schedule delay. Different customized products of the same kind of equipment resemble with each other in the structure and function. Organizations have been frustrated by reinventing solutions owing to the repeated mistakes resulting from the failure to recognize the difference of the projects (Ramesh and Tiwana 1999). • Generally, the heavy equipment is customized product. Customer participates in the project management from product design to delivery and installation. Since the project cycle is very long, changes in requirement are inevitable, such as the supplier selection, working environment of the equipment, and the material and technology adopted (Pratim Ghosh and Chandy Varghese 2004). Moreover, due to the changing customer requirement happened to different stages of the project, it’s essential to enhance the inter-departmental collaboration to address the changes in project management. • Most importantly, the project schedule is required to be in harmony with the customers’ actual progress of the on-site construction perfectly. Because of the great size of some parts and the equipment, assembly ahead of schedule would result in problems in inventory management. That means the project plan should be ready to be changed any time according to up-to-date requirement. Given this, to improve the flexibility of the project plan requires in-depth inter-departmental collaboration. • The manufacturer has to accept the fact that the brands of some parts are assigned, or the supplier is specified by the customer unconditionally. Besides, there is only one supplier of some appointed parts or special techniques available. The manufacturer is at a disadvantage facing the supplier and customer when uncertainty happens. The interdepartmental collaboration has to be strengthened for flexibility. In addition, there is no independent special project manager for each project generally. The unique issues of HEMP management bring challenges for manufacturers. Furthermore, the troubles encountered aren’t isolated problems and the management approach should be systemic. However, we assert that the limitations that plague manufacturers can be overcome by using appropriate CPM approach with a systems thinking. Why a Systemic Approach is Required The challenges mentioned above are commonly found in HEMP management. The literature provides evidence that project management could benefit from the systemic

123


147

approach. The complexity of heavy equipment manufacturing management calls for adopting inter-departmental collaborative measures with a systems thinking. The cause for the complexity includes the heavy equipment structure, organizational structure, and the project work packages as well as the relations among them. The complexity of heavy equipment structure lies in the thousands of parts and the interplay. The business relations between the different departments and teams result in the complexity of organizational structure. In addition, a project is trying to balance the goal of cost, time and quality of a project (PMI 2006), the interests of different departments, and interplay of different parts in design, manufacturing and other stages of the product lifecycle. Furthermore, the elements are dependent on each other and each of them has their own special needs or characteristics. In order to improve the performance of heavy equipment manufacturing management, the systems thinking should be taken into consideration. Three subsystems are defined in the HEMP management system in the study: the product structure subsystem, the organization structure subsystem, and the project work subsystem. Therefore, how to investigate the three subsystems and relationships among them is vital to a successful project. Heavy Equipment Manufacturing Project Management System As indicated by Vinnakota (2011), system is a set of interacting or interdependent entities real or abstract-forming a complex integrated whole for a purpose. According to the statement, the HEMP management system is identified as shown in Fig. 1. The purpose of the project management system is to deliberate the required equipment to customer with a

Heavy equipment manufacturing project management system

Organizational structure (OBS)

Product structure system

Project work subsystem

Organization subsystem

Work breakdown structure (WBS) Product breakdown structure (PBS) Handbook

00:Company 11: Plan Dep.

12: Produc tion Dep.

Documents

13: Quality Dep.

...

Specification Equipment

Management criterion 000

Team

100

Team

101

Team Team

Record and analysis

System

System

Subsystem

201

Subsystem Assembly

301

Assembly Assembly

202 203 Management criterion

Record and analysis

Part

Part

103

Different organization levels according to different work packages

...

Subsystem

300

102

System

200

Team

Responsibility assignment matrix

After -sale service

Management criterion

Work package Task Matrix

Different work packages according to different parts

Fig. 1 Heavy equipment manufacturing project management system

123

148


lower cost and higher quality at the required time. It consists of three subsystems: the product structure subsystem, the organization subsystem and the project work subsystem. A systemic approach should emphasis the interactions and connectedness of different components of a system (Kessler 2007). In order to explore the elements of the subsystems and the interrelations among them, the notion of breakdown is used to divide a project systemically (Sarantis et al. 2010). Reductionism generates knowledge and understanding of phenomena by breaking them down into constituent parts and then studying these simple elements (Flood 2010). Particularly the approach emphasizes on systemic elements of the subsystems through PBS, WBS and OBS. The PBS provides a decomposition of the natural physical structure of the output product being developed (PMI 2006). With the use of PBS, the elements of the product structure systems are presented, such as the assemblies, the parts, and the related spare parts and specifications as well as the structural relations. With the help of WBS, project could be progressively divided into different work packages until the concrete activity (PMI 2006). Not only the work packages but also the logical relations of them are revealed. The OBS depicts the organization hierarchy, allowing the project’s work packages to be related to the performing organizational units (PMI 1996), such as a staff or a team. The PBS, WBS and OBS are used to give an overall view of a project. The interrelatedness is one of the fundamental ideas of systems thinking (Flood 2010). Because of the complexity of the HEMP management system, it’s necessary to clarify the relationship between the subsystems. The relationship between the project work subsystem and the organization subsystem is revealed by the responsibility assignment matrix. That means it’s easily to figure out which staff or team is responsible for some project work package, such as the incoming quality control of a purchased part. The project work subsystem and the product structure subsystem interact with each other through the task matrix. The task matrix demonstrates what work has to do for completing some part of the equipment. By analyzing the structure of equipment and comparing it with previous product, the features of the parts could pose influence on the definition and management of the project work packages through the task matrix. For example, once the required material of some part is changed, the project work packages of the design, manufacturing, installation and the related inspection should be redesigned instead of repeating the same policy as that of prior projects. With the help of the mechanism, the changes in the equipment structure are transformed to key content of the project work packages which are assigned to specific staff or team. Developing Collaborative Project Management Approach with a Systems View A Framework of Collaborative Project Management The relationship between WBS, PBS and OBS constitutes the basis of the CPM approach. Given this, the paper creates the framework of CPM, as shown in Fig. 2. Emphasis is placed upon the pragmatism. Drawn from the proactive management, building up the relationship between WBS and PBS is helpful to identify what should be paid special attention to in the project management. It’s the first step towards successful HEMP. Next, the approach lays stress on the collaborative activity management by establishing the relationship between WBS and OBS. The inter-departmental collaboration will go well only if the responsibility of each team is defined explicitly. Finally, the collaborative activities are supervised and the achievement of each stage is guaranteed through collaborative project review. By using a systems approach, the project manager and participator would be able to bear in mind the

123


149

Suppliers

Results:

Customer

Identifying Project Characteristics

Defining Collaborative Activities

Collaborative Performance Evaluation

OBS-WBS

Collaborative project review

Plan Cost Quality

requirement WBS-PBS

Risk ...

Project resources

Fig. 2 Framework of the CPM approach

required end result and take steps to achieving that requirement. In the discussions to follow, we will depict the CPM approach in detail. Identifying Project Characteristics Although the customer requirements are diversity, the product won’t be different with others too much if they are the same kind of equipment. In order to reduce the potential project risk, the HEMP management should lay stress on the project characteristics management. Project characteristics are the basic attribute of a project and help the manager distinguish the project from others, especially those of the same kind of equipment. It can also be used to recognize the features of different products in a project. From the perspective of product, customer as well as project management, project characteristics identify the features of a project in product changes, customized items and project risks. Product changes which distinguish the equipment from the one with standard configuration can be found in technical agreement usually. The changes could be size, load, or working environment that has rarely encountered before. The principle is taking both the category, such as the size and color, and the frequency of occurrence, including normal, rarely and frequently, into consideration. Customized items can be anything that customer pays special attention to, such as safety of the operation, cost of the maintenance, reliability of some component, maneuverability of some function, and the comfort of operation. The problems happened to other similar projects may also occur to the new project. Therefore, it’s necessary to consider this case and the potential risks resulted from the special customer requirement. Project risks include the quality problems, purchase exceeding project budget, schedule delay of some supplier, changes in installation schedule and so on. Project characteristics can be identified by establishing task matrix. Take the equipment of the calcination travelling crane for example, the project characteristics identification is shown in Fig. 3. The specialties of each part of the equipment are analyzed in the three categories: product changes, customized items and the project risks. The different teams may examine the equipment with different purpose. That would be helpful to take proactive or corrective action when prior mistakes are revealed. If there is more than one piece of product in a project, the difference of the products also can be pointed out in the analysis. The project characteristics identification is based on the knowledge, skills and experience accumulated from organizational memory and expertise. The special measures are added into the project work packages along with the project characteristics identification. The breakdown level of the product structure and the project work depends on the how much the project management and

123

150


Fig. 3 Project characteristics identification in task matrix

supervision should be gone into. Moreover, the breakdown level of the product structure is also influenced by the complexity of the product structure. Defining Collaborative Activities Figure 4 illustrates the inter-departmental collaboration happened in heavy equipment manufacturer in four dimensions: organizational level of collaboration, way of collaboration, form of collaboration, and the scope of problems required for collaboration. The suppliers include the original design manufacturer, parts providers, and the service providers, such as the providers of logistics, installation and maintenance. They join in the collaboration through the teams or departments of the manufacturer indirectly. The four dimensions of the inter-departmental collaboration are the basic properties of any collaborative activities. The collaboration in HEMP management is a multi-dimensional activity, during some stages there are difficulties in cooperation and role understanding (Hope and Amdahl 2011). It’s impossible to supervise and manage all the collaborative activities in daily operation. But the important information and activities related to project characteristics management are crucial to successful HEMP as it reflects the unique control requirement of a project. Since the inter-departmental collaboration has multiple attributes and complexity back ground, in order to manage the collaboration in project characteristics management, it’s essential to clarify the collaborative activities and the responsibilities among the performer, facilitator and supervisor. In order to introduce the collaborative activities definition process, the example of incoming quality control of the fitting parts is given in Fig. 5. It’s clear that the team of incoming quality control acts as the performer, the production department is the facilitator, and the project management office (PMO) is the supervisor and facilitator. With respect to the project work package, the meaning of the activity and information are as follows: • • • •

Activity 1i: the preventive activities adopted by the performer. Activity 2i: the supportive, supervisory and incentive activities provided by PMO. Activity 3i: the supportive activities provided by other teams. Information i: the latest useful or changed information of the project provided by the performer to other teams.

123


151

Quality

Cost

Schedule

Fig. 4 Overview of inter-departmental collaboration

Fig. 5 Collaborative activities definition in responsibility assignment matrix

i is the sequence number of the activity or information offered. The activities and information related to the project characteristics management are taken into consideration. Preventive action is taken with the goal of avoiding a problem by changing something in the way the project is managed (Dobson 2003). When the project responsibilities are

123

152


defined and project tasks are assigned, the OBS and WBS would be connected to build up the business collaboration relationship in different organizational levels. The breakdown level of the OBS and WBS also depends on how much the project management and supervision should be gone into. Collaborative Performance Evaluation From a systems view, a project has goals even for intermediate stages, and the team members would always fully understand importance of these goals and work towards these results. The complexity of heavy equipment determines the uncertainties may sometimes be very big on different stages (Gati-Wechsler and de Souza Nascimento 2008). In order to get the target of each project stage and supervise the inter-departmental collaboration, the project review is adopted in collaborative evaluation. The number of review gates is determined by special requirement of a project and organizational structure, especially the cooperation relationship among the departments or teams. Eight key review gates embodying some less important but very necessary assessment are recommended in Fig. 6. Sometimes the same review will be repeated two or three times for different purpose with different participants. According to the responsibility assignment in Fig. 5, inter-departmental collaboration in project review is shown in Fig. 7. The arrow here represents the main content of the evaluation. The valuator is put in front of the arrow while the team evaluation is set at the end of it. In a general sense, the review is performed by meeting review or material review. In material review, the organizer just needs to send materials to the valuators and waits for the feedbacks at a given time. Though the review, the collaborative activities and the project management performance is supervised and evaluated. In addition, with the confirmation of the intermediate results step by step, the reviews guarantee the deliverables of the important process. Moreover, the reviews are also conducive to share latest information of the project and build common information standard for inter-departmental collaboration.

An Illustrative Case: The Calcination Travelling Crane Manufacturing Project The Application of the CPM Approach in Case Study Company Because of the complexity of HEMP management, the CPM approach is tested on a typical project initially. The tested project embodies the following features: (1) the equipment

Fig. 6 Review gate for CPM

123


Others teams

Facilitator

153

Team of plan

Team of quality

PMO

Performer

Supportive information and activities Supportive information and activities Schedule Quality Project characteristics management Project characteristics management

Fig. 7 Inter-departmental collaboration process in project review

should be common in the enterprise; (2) the number of the equipment in the project should be more than one; (3) there have been many problems on previous projects of the product. After the pilot in the typical projects, the CPM approach is improved in detail. And then, the approach is use on all the on-line projects of the product to perfect the method as well as to promote the harmony between the approach and the existing management system. With a wide application of the approach, the first thing is to grading the projects according to the importance considering the customer, type of the equipment, price and whether the product should be redesigned completely as well as other vital factors. The more importance of a project, the more detail of the OBS, PBS and WBS should be, as there is no necessary to conduct the PBS, WBS and OBS thoroughly for all the projects. The following significant step is to develop the task matrix and the responsibility assignment matrix. Above all, the OBS is the basis of the PBS and the WBS because all the tasks are conducted under the organizational structure of the enterprise. As indicated in Fig. 8, the main principle is to develop the general matrix at first, and then to establish the special matrix for a project by identifying the project characteristics. The object of PBS is a kind of equipment when establishing the general task matrix. The product is broken down into minor assemblies and sub-systems while the WBS is subject to the PBS. The establishment of the general task matrix is carried out by each team concentrating on the general features of the product. Once the project characteristics of a special project are taken into consideration, the general task matrix can be transformed to a customized one conveniently. As to the responsibility assignment matrix, the general matrix is conducted by

The task matrix of the project

The general task matrix

The project characteristics The responsibility assignment matrix of the project

The general responsibility assignment matrix

The OBS of the enterprise

Fig. 8 The transformation from the general matrix to a specific matrix

123

154


every team according to the present duty and the common treatment for exceptions. The WBS is for a kind of task instead of a specific task. The general responsibility assignment matrix evolves into a customized one when considering the tasks for the project characteristics management. Finally, a more detailed implementation scheme for collaborative project reviews is developed. As discussed above, the reviews are influenced by different stages requirement of a project, the current management system, and the performance evaluation system of the enterprise. The major elements of the reviews in the case study enterprise are shown in Table 2. The types of the review include selection review and inspection review. Selection review is to make decision about the project management, while the inspection review aims to check out the achievement of each stage. Because of the different purposes of the review and the difficulties for the staff to use it, the review approach consists of fuzzy AHP method, checklist method, and the expert review method (Ho et al. 2010; Wu and Barnes 2011). Otherwise, more details about reviews containing many tables, process and other interpretations. The paper won’t present all the materials due to the limited space except the following case. In order to elaborate the systemic approach more explicitly, the case of the project of the calcination travelling crane is illustrated. The calcination travelling crane is an overhead crane in baking shop in carbon industry, as shown in Fig. 9. The customer is from Russia. Since the calcination travelling crane isn’t a full new product, in order to illustrate the approach more clearly, we only focus on the second-level of PBS, WBS and OBS relationship. Project Characteristics Identification in the Cart Design The cart is one of the main parts of the calcination travelling crane. It consists of main girder, end carriage trolley, platform, electric hoist and cable chain. Figure 10 shows the results of the project characteristics identification in the project work package of cart design. The project characteristics identification is carried out by the design team with the help of marketing, manufacturing and electrical design team. When each part of the equipment is analyzed, the results can be shared with all the teams, as is helpful to adopt appropriate measures. Collaborative Activities Definition in Cart Design According to Fig. 5, with the purpose of adopting appropriate measures for the project characteristics management, the required activities are defined in Fig. 11. The relationship between the project characteristics and the activities is also interpreted. Collaborative Production Review As mentioned above, there are eight review gates in collaborative performance evaluation. Because the parts purchased occupy more than half of the equipment’s cost, kinds of problems of quality and schedule happen in manufacturing department. Therefore, the production review is vital to a successful project. It is initiated by manufacture department in order to ensure that the manufacturing process is under control. In addition, the production review is carried out two times. The first time is within the meeting review for the purpose of project characteristics identification and preventive action adoption, while the

123

Type

Selection review

Inspection review

Inspection review

Selection review

Inspection review

Inspection review

Inspection review

Inspection review

Review nodes

CPR1: Proposal review

CPR2: Contract review

CPR3: Technical review

CPR4: Purchase review

CPR5: Production review

CPR6: Acceptance review

CPR7: Financial review

CPR8: Closing review

Checklist

Checklist method

Checklist and fuzzy

Checklist method

Fuzzy AHP and Checklist method

Checklist method

Checklist method

Fuzzy AHP method

Approach

Table 2 The elements of collaborative project review

Customer Service department

Financial department

Installation department

Manufacture department

Purchase department

R&D department

Marketing department

Marketing department

Object

Malarial review

Meeting review and malarial review



Meeting review


Meeting review

Meeting review

Form

(3) Evaluation on the reception of the balance payment

(2) Evaluation on survey of customer satisfaction and the customer demand in future

(1) Evaluation on effectiveness of troubleshooting measures

(2) Analysis on the cost and profit

(1) Payment collection schedule

(3) Evaluation on the effectiveness of the user operation and maintenance

(2) Evaluation on exception handling during the installation and commissioning process

(1) Delivery schedule

(3) Precautions for the following departments, such as logistics and installation department.

(2) Evaluation on effectiveness of the corrective measures

(1) Evaluation on production schedule

(3) Requirements on delivery, price, quality, service etc.

(2) Supplier selection

(1) Procurement plan

(2) Precautions for the following departments. about changes on technique and technology

(1) Technical scheme fulfill the requirements of the function, safety and economic

(4) Contract risk analysis and prevention

(3) Milestone plan

(2) Expected cost and profit

(1) Customized demands identification

(1) Establish the project or not

Main output

Syst Pract Action Res (2014) 27:141–164 155

123

156


Fig. 9 Calcination travelling crane Product change 1 Product change 2 Project risk 2 Project risk1 Cart

End carriage trolley

Customized item1 Platform Electric hoist

Customized item 2

Project work package: Cart design

Main Girder

Cable chain

Fig. 10 Project characteristics identification for cart design

Fig. 11 Collaborative activities definition in cart design

second is within material review aiming to evaluate performance of the actual plan, quality, project characteristics management and the supportive activities provided to other teams. The performance of the production department and other departments, including R&D department, purchase department, logistics department, installation department, and customer service department, are evaluated.

123


157

Outcomes of the Implementation After the pilot run in the illustrative case, the encouraging results are summarized in this section. The project 10 9 113 is the one that the CPM approach is applied, which enhances the project management performance in a variety of aspects: • The quality problems of the project are reduced, especially the repeated problems and those caused by poor inter-departmental collaboration. The comparison of the price of non-conformance (PONC) (Kiani et al. 2009) of the present project and previous projects of the calcination travelling crane is shown in Fig. 12. The average PONC has decreased significantly. • The flexibility of the project schedule is improved. Regular and formal reviews are helpful to improve flexibility whenever it’s necessary (Huchzermeier and Loch 2001). Since the project schedule is a just-in-time requirement, we examined discrepancy in the actual start date of installation and the actual completion date of full preparation for installation of seven projects. As shown in the Fig. 13, it’s obvious that the harmony between the two dates is improved. • As the inter-departmental collaboration is supervised, the responsibility shirking phenomenon and the buck-passing is decreasing. The collaborative evaluation ensures that team members don’t pass off their mistakes as ‘‘unforeseen uncertainty’’ (Pich et al. 2002). Optimization in product design and project management is encouraged. • The share of the tools, generic designs, expertise and tacit understanding for project management is facilitated. When starting a new project the employees can fall back on existing solutions and constantly develop them further according to given requirements, as builds up expertise and saves a considerable amount of time (Hoegl and Schulze 2005).

Fig. 12 Comparison of the PONC

Fig. 13 Discrepancy in the actual start date of installation and the actual completion date of full preparation for installation

123

158


Summary and Discussions Summary A systemic approach would have opened up the debate and helped better understand the problem situation by involving all the people affected (Cao et al. 2004). The results reveal that CPM with a systems view is an applicable and feasible approach to HEMP management. One of the strength is that each important element is identified in the HEMP management system and drawn into the project management measures. In an environment where multiple project groups share and compete for limited resources to achieve their own goals (Li and Liu 2005), the systemic approach proposed demonstrates the following features: (1)

(2)

(3)

The project characteristics are identified by the task matrix through the PBS and WBS. The systems view on the product structure requires taking the parts as different but mutually depended elements. The ‘‘different’’ means to break the product down, while the ‘‘mutually depended’’ is to consider the influence of the different parts, especially when any changes happened to a part. The knowledge and expertise accumulated from former projects can be recovered and applied in the new project management. With the help of the WBS and OBS, the inaction of the organization subsystem and the project work subsystem is manifested in the responsibility assignment matrix. The collaborative activities are defined for inter-departmental collaboration. Referring to the changes in the project structure subsystem, the important information is exchanged and the critical activities are defined in project work packages that are assigned to special teams. The multiple objectives from all team members are judged from the perspective of project success instead of the interests of some team. The risk resulted from inappropriate treatment owing to the conflict of different teams’ interests is mitigated by collaborative performance evaluation. A dynamic supervision and adjustment of objectives of each stage is applied to ensure the end result of the project.

Discussions A project is a one-off undertaking to achieve specific goals, with distinct start and end points, and is implemented within the restriction of budget, time and acceptable performance standards (Lim and Yeo 1995). However, according to Vinnakota (2011), the usage of systemic approach in situations characterized by rapid change, multiple interests, high variety, limited resources and high complexity, with a chance of long term success is well accepted. The repaid change of project characteristics, multiple interests of different teams, high variety of project work packages, limited project resources and the high complexity of the heavy equipment project management indicate that it’s reasonable to adopt a systemic approach except that there is no necessary to guarantee a long term success because of the ‘‘one-off undertaking’’ feature. However, the efforts of the research are made to develop an approach for a kind of project management instead of some project management. The ultimate purpose of the approach is for the enterprise long term success through the project success. In R&D project management, Rego and de Sa Carvalho (1995) defined five main systems (or ‘‘environments’’): the organization, the project, the customer, the ‘‘project management tools and techniques’’, and ‘‘other associated projects’’. But it would be hard to examine the principal issues in project management extensively if too much attention is paid to external environment. Project management is a typical multi-objective problem

123


159

(Brauers and Zavadskas 2010). On the one hand, the CPM approach is trying to balance different project goals, the interests of different departments, and to manage interplay of different parts in design, manufacturing and other stages of the product lifecycle. On the other hand, the philosophy of reductionism is employed and the product structure subsystem, the organization subsystem and the project work subsystem are taken into consideration while the customer, supplier and others minor factors are received limited attention. The inaction of the subsystems or the elements of a subsystem is also simplified or partly ignored. As claimed by Ulrich (1988), the quest for comprehensiveness–originally directed critically against the reductionistic tendencies of conventional scientific discipline—is bound to lead into new kinds of reductionism, e.g., by reducing everything to ‘‘nothing but’’ functional systems aspects. As mentioned in literature by Drechsler et al. (2010), the general principles of a systemic approach should be applied and tailored to the specific circumstances in project management. There aren’t many vagueness regarding terms and definitions but the systems thinking has fitted into the CPM approach. Otherwise, the CPM approach with a systems view has integrated into exiting organization by OBS and the exiting project management frameworks by WBS as well as the exiting product family management by PBS. The uncertainty of the project management is common, especially in HEMP management. Systemic approach embodies the proven managerial principles or critical success factors in management of the project variables (Jaafari 2007). There are many project variables in such a complex project management system. Systems thinking was encouraged to accept the diversity of issues confronting decision makers (McIntyre and Pradhan 2003). The project variables are defined as project characteristics in the study and three kinds of vital project characteristics are interpreted. Too many variables taken into consideration would weaken the practicability of the approach. Given this, the inter-departmental collaboration and collaborative evaluation are introduced to insure that the influence of the variables will be under control. The systems thinking is an important tool for dealing with problems in HEMP management. The pragmatic problem-solving approach can also be applied to other areas of project management, such as new product development and construction project management. Although the results in the case study are encouraging, the CPM approach also has limitations in application. On the one hand, without the supporting of information system, the potential benefits of the approach will be limited. On the other hand, the relationship between the collaborative activities management and the departmental functions, and relationship between the collaborative evaluation and the performance evaluation of the enterprise should be harmony. More disciplines and measures should be developed and tailed in detail with a systems view. Or negative effects would be produced to both the project management and the enterprise operation. However, there won’t be a best method to HEMP management. The overall suggestion is that the feasibility and the effectiveness of the CPM approach with a systems view can improve performance of HEMP management.

Conclusions The Contribution This study is not the first effort at applying the systemic approach to project management. It is, however, the first in which a manufacturing project is concerned. This investigation

123

160


contributes to the scientific debate on manufacturing project management by developing the CPM approach with a systems view. The systemic approach borrowed has been tested and validated in a heavy equipment manufacturing enterprise. The main contributions drawn from the research are: (1) the HEMP management system is analyzed, the relationships and the inaction of the elements are revealed with the top-down disassembly of the project work, product structure and organization structure; (2) a CPM approach with a systems view is developed when the project characteristics management and interdepartmental collaboration are emphasized; (3) the philosophy of defining a project management system and the principles for systemic approach application in project management are discussed and useful suggestions are presented. Implications for Practitioners All these results may involve the following recommendations for practitioners of the manufacturing project management. In multi-project environment where the products are of the same type and resemble with each other, project characteristics management is centerpiece. With the help of the project task matrix, to identify the specialty of a project is the first step for any successful project. The responsibility assignment matrix is helpful to define the responsibilities of the performer, facilitator and the supervisor as well as the collaborative relationship in inter-departmental collaboration. Otherwise, the collaborative performance evaluation provides the practitioners a useful method to supervise the progress of the project. With regard to the systemic approach application, the first suggestion is that the reductionism is an important principle in systemic approach application. Secondly, it’s better for the systemic approach to be integrated with the organization environment and the existing management system. Finally, the detailed measures would provide an effective support for systemic approach application. Otherwise, the findings are also particularly meaningful for systemic approach application in project management in social environment and other industrial applications. Implications for Researchers The systemic CPM approach has been shown to be a feasible and effective method. However, the research is just only one step in the lengthy process of building HEMP management theory and systemic approach application. In terms of future research, it would be promising to concentrate on establishing a broader collaborative management mechanism for customers, manufacturers, suppliers and even the designer (some products are design outsourcing) with a systems thinking. Moreover, based on the qualitative analysis of HEMP management system, the quantitative analysis can be employed to explore the relationship and the inaction of the elements more thoroughly. Acknowledgments The author would like to thank Shanghai Research Center for industrial Informatics for the funding support to this research.

Appendix 1 See Tables 3, 4 and 5.

123


161

Table 3 Project characteristics identification for cart designing LPBS

Project task: Mechanical design

Cart Main girder

Product change 1: The increased span of the tool trolley Product change 2: The changed position of the gear change from the inside of the main girder to the outside Project risk 1: Because the control cabinet platform is installed on the main Girder in former equipment, the control cabinet is easy to be damaged Project risk 2: Because the main girder is a partial rail box girder, the temperature will influence the camber detection

End carriage trolley Platform

Customized item1: The color of the railings is yellow instead of white. It never happened. Customized item 3: The air-conditioning only has heating function

Electric hoist Cable chain

Table 4 Inter-departmental collaboration in cart design Teams

Activity and information

Corresponding project characteristics

Team of mechanical design

Activity 11: Redesign the end carriage trolley according to the span of the tool trolley

Product change 1

Activity 12: Select the appropriate material for the main girder considering the extreme temperature

Project risk 2

Activity 13: Manage the drawings of different products of the same project

All

Activity 14: Redesign the maintenance platform. Two products are double electric hoist maintenance platform; the others are single electric hoist maintenance platform

Project risk 1

Activity 15: Redesign the location of the gear and the maintenance platform

Product change 2

Activity 16: Redesign the connection between the main girder and end carriage using the pin instead of the fine nail

Design optimization

Activity 17: Redesign the wheel group as the anglebearing installation adopted

Design optimization

PMO

Activity 21: Performance evaluation-the accuracy and timeliness of kinds of reports, supportive activities provided

All

Team of electrical design

Activity 31: The size of the electric hoist maintenance platform requirement

Project risk1

Team of foreign marketing

Activity 32: The material of the extreme environment, especially the working temperature requirement

Project risk 2

Team of purchasing

Information 11: Customer special requirement-the airconditioning only has heating function.

Customized item 3

Team of painting

Information 12: Optimized design-the color of the railings is yellow instead of white

Customized item 1

123

162


Table 4 continued Teams

Activity and information

Corresponding project characteristics

PMO

Information 13: Management method of the drawings of different products of the same project. An outstanding method to distinguish the products of the same project is worth to be shared

/

Table 5 Collaborative production review Material

Casting

Forging

–

Planting and packing

General plan

Due date

10/28

11/10

9/30

–

12/31

12/31

Actual date

10/28

10/15

9/15

–

12/31

12/31

Due days

50

90

40

–

7

512

Plan

Actual days

50

70

25

–

7

462

Discrepancy

0

26

15

–

0

0

1. The half-moon bearing replaced by angular bearing, but the installation and maintenance, aren’t unchanged

2. The distance between the import and export of air-condition is increased

4. Because the stainless steel is used for bearing block, it’s difficult to manufacture

–

Measures

–

–

–

–

Self-evaluation on effects

Excellent

Good

Good

Average

Actual

Value of PONC

Times of repair

Times of rework

Loss caused by discard

Target

0

0

0

0

Discrepancy

1,600

2

1

0

Installation dep.

Customer service dept.

PMO

Marking Project characteristics management Project characteristics

Good

Marking Quality

Marking Supportive activities R&D dep.

Purchase dep.

Logistics dep.

Others

Marking PONC Price of nonconformance

References Alladi A, Vadari S (2011) Systemic approach to project management: a stakeholders perspective for sustainability. In: Proceedings of the India Conference (INDICON), 2011 Annual IEEE. pp 1–4 Anumba CJ, Ugwu OO, Newnham L, Thorpe A (2002) Collaborative design of structures using intelligent agents. Autom Constr 11(1):89–103. doi:10.1016/s0926-5805(01)00055-3

123


163

Bell S, Christina A (2006) Applying systemic project management approaches for the UK national health service. Syst Pract Action Res 19(1):27–43 Brauers WKM, Zavadskas EK (2010) Project management by MULTIMOORA as an instrument for transition economies. Technol Econ Dev Eco 16(1):5–24 Cao G, Clarke S, Lehaney B (2004) The need for a systemic approach to change management—a case study. Syst Pract Action Res 17(2):103–126 Checkland P, Winter M (2006) Process and content: two ways of using SSM. J Oper Res Soc 57(12): 1435–1441 Chen F, Nunamaker Jr J, Romano Jr N, Briggs RO (2003) A collaborative project management architecture. In: Proceedings of the 36th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS’03), pp 1–4 Cirella S, Guerci M, Shani ABR (2011) A process model of collaborative management research: the study of collective creativity in the luxury industry. Syst Pract Action Res 25(3):281–300 Dobson MS (2003) Streetwise project management: how to manage people, processes, and time to achieve the results you need. adams media. Avon, Massachusetts Drechsler A, Kalvelage P, Trepper T (2010) Systemic IT project management: a rational way to manage irrationalities in IT projects? Practice-driven research on enterprise transformation 69 (Part 2) 69:127–155. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-16770-6_6 Flood RL (2010) The relationship of ‘systems thinking’ to action research. Syst Pract Action Res 23(4): 269–284 Flyvbjerg B (2006) Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qual Inq 12(2):219–245 Fricke SE, Shenbar AJ (2000) Managing multiple engineering projects in a manufacturing support environment. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 47(2):258–268. doi:10.1109/17.846792 Gati-Wechsler AM, de Souza Nascimento PT (2008) Manufacturing role in simple product development at a multi-project environment. In: Proceedings of Portland international conference on management of engineering & technology, 2008. pp 1179–1188. doi:10.1109/picmet.2008.4599728 George AL, Bennett A (2005) Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. The MIT Press, Massachusetts Gunawardena C, Brown DH (2007) IS initiatives in the vocational and technical education sector of developing Asian countries: a systems approach to the management of project intervention processes. Electron J Inf Syst Dev Ctries 30:1–19 Ho W, Xu X, Dey PK (2010) Multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier evaluation and selection: a literature review. Eur J Oper Res 202(1):16–24 Hoegl M, Schulze A (2005) How to support knowledge creation in new product development: an investigation of knowledge management methods. Eur Manag J 23(3):263–273 Hope KL, Amdahl E (2011) Configuring designers? Using one agile project management methodology to achieve user participation. New Technol Work Employ 26(1):54–67. doi:10.1111/j.1468-005X.2010. 00257.x Huang GQ, Feng XB, Mak KL (2001) POPIM: pragmatic online project information management for collaborative product development. In: Proceedings of the sixth international conference on computer supported cooperative work in design, 2001. pp 255–260. doi:10.1109/cscwd.2001.942268 Huchzermeier A, Loch CH (2001) Project management under risk: using the real options approach to evaluate flexibility in R&D. Manag Sci 85–101 Jaafari A (2007) Project and program diagnostics: a systemic approach. Int J Proj Manag 25(8):781–790 Kessler AM (2007) A systemic approach framework for operational risk: SAFOR. Department of Computer and Systems Sciences, Stockholm University Kiani B, Shirouyehzad H, Bafti FK, Fouladgar H (2009) System dynamics approach to analysing the cost factors effects on cost of quality. Int J Qual Reliab Manag 26(7):685–698 Kindinger JP (2002) A systems approach to project risk management. Paper presented at the 6th international conference on probabilistic safety assessment and management, Puerto Rico Kocher PY, Kaudela-Baum S, Wolf P (2011) Enhancing organisational innovation capability through systemic action research: a case of a Swiss SME in the food industry. Syst Pract Action Res 24(1): 17–44 Li J, Liu W (2005) An agent-based system for multi-project planning and scheduling. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on mechatronics and automation, Niagara Falls, 2005. pp 659–664. doi: 10.1109/icma.2005.1626628 Lim K, Yeo K (1995) Management by projects in manufacturing industry. In: Proceedings of 1995 IEEE annual international engineering management conference on global engineering management: emerging trends in the Asia Pacific. pp 402–407 Love P, Lopez R, Goh Y, Davis P (2011) Systemic modelling of design error causation in social infrastructure projects. Procedia Eng 14:161–168

123

164


Malterud K (2001) Qualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines. Lancet 358(9280):483–488 McIntyre J, Pradhan M (2003) A systemic approach to addressing the complexity of energy problems. Syst Pract Action Res 16(3):213–223 MI P (1996) A guide to the project management body of knowledge. Project Management Institute, Pennsylvania MI P (2006) Practice standard for work breakdown structures-second edition, second edition. Project Management Institute, Pennsylvania Morris PWG (2002) Science, objective knowledge and the theory of project management. Civil Eng 150(2): 82–90 Niebecker K, Eager D, Moulton B (2010) Collaborative and cross-company project management within the automotive industry using the balanced scorecard. Int J Manag Proj Bus 3(2):328–337. doi:10.1108/ 17538371011036617 Pich MT, Loch CH, De Meyer A (2002) On uncertainty, ambiguity, and complexity in project management. Manag Sci 1008–1023 Pratim Ghosh P, Chandy Varghese J (2004) Globally distributed product development using a new project management framework. Int J Proj Manag 22(8):669–678 Prior L (2003) Using documents in social research. Sage Publications Ltd., London Ramesh B, Tiwana A (1999) Supporting collaborative process knowledge management in new product development teams. Decis Support Syst 27(1–2):213–235. doi:10.1016/s0167-9236(99)00045-7 Rego M, de Sa Carvalho L (1995) Managing R&D projects: a systemic approach. In: Proceedings of IEEE annual international conference on global engineering management: emerging trends in the Asia Pacific, 1995. pp 281–286 Robson C (2002) Real world research: a resource for social scientists and practitioner-researchers. Blackwell, Oxford Sarantis D, Smithson S, Charalabidis Y, Askounis D (2010) A critical assessment of project management methods with respect to electronic government implementation challenges. Syst Pract Action Res 23(4): 301–321 Shui-li Y, Meng L, Li L (2011) Forecasting of production cycle of engineer-to-order products. In: Proceedings of the IEEE 18th international conference on industrial engineering and engineering management (IE&EM), 2011. pp 510–513. doi:10.1109/icieem.2011.6035210 Suter WN (2012) Introduction to educational research: a critical thinking approach. second edition. Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks Terciyanli E, Seker V, Ozturk TC, Aksuyek HS (2007) Collaborative R&D project management: The case of the national power quality project of Turkey. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on engineering management, 2007. pp 185–190. doi:10.1109/iemc.2007.5235072 Ulrich W (1988) Systems thinking, systems practice, and practical philosophy: a program of research. Syst Pract Action Res 1(2):137–163 Vinnakota T (2011) Systemic assessment of risks for projects: a systems and cybernetics approach. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on quality and reliability (ICQR), 2011. pp 376–380 Wang XH, Ming XG, Kong FB, Wang L, Zhao CL (2008) Collaborative project management with supplier involvement. Concurr Eng Res A 16(4):253–261. doi:10.1177/1063293x08100025 Wanshan W, Tianbiao Y, Jing Z, Yang Z (2009) Study on project management system oriented collaborative design. In: Proceedings of the 7th IEEE international conference on industrial informatics (INDIN 2009), 2009. pp 295–300. doi:10.1109/indin.2009.5195820 Wu C, Barnes D (2011) A literature review of decision-making models and approaches for partner selection in agile supply chains. J Purch Supply Manag 17(4):256–274. doi:10.1016/j.pursup.2011.09.002 Yin RK (2008) Case study research: design and methods, fourth edition. Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks Zhao B, Hou K (2010) Research on SOA-based cost information integration system for project manufacturing industry. In: Proceedings of the international conference on information management, innovation management and industrial engineering (ICIII), 2010. pp 3–6. doi:10.1109/iciii.2010.165

123