Published in: 1996 CSCE Annual Conference (Volume I); Proceedings of the 1996 Annual Conference of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, Edmonton, Alberta, May 29 to June 1, 1996. CSCE, Montreal, Canada, 1996. Vol. 1, pp. 458-467.
PROJECT MANAGEMENT, 2015 AD Lloyd M. Waugh University of New Brunswick, Department of Civil Engineering PO Box 4400, Fredericton, NB E3B 5A3;
[email protected] Thomas M. Froese University of British Columbia, Department of Civil Engineering 2324 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4; t
[email protected], URL: http://www.civil.ubc.ca/~tfroese/ N. Jocelyn St. Pierre University of New Brunswick, Department of Civil Engineering PO Box 4400, Fredericton, NB E3B 5A3;
[email protected] ABSTRACT What will project management be like in 20 years? We report the responses to a questionnaire that asked many aspects of this question to 29 industry practitioners and experts. The paper considers project management from five perspectives: the project management environment, computing systems, application areas, information and integration, and overall. We conducted a similar questionnaire in 1990, so we also include a section that compares relevant responses from the two questionnaires. The responses indicate among other things that: the number, size and type of companies will change, computer technologies will have a positive impact on competitive advantage, we are in for a continuation of the exponential increases in the capacity and connectivity of computing systems, intelligent agents may be more common than paper in 2015 applications will operate on project databases rather than being stand-alone systems, information will be networked between designers and on-site personnel, and that general purpose industry standards will be prevalent. We include a hypothetical scenario of what life will be like for a project manager in 2015, based on the questionnaire results and comments, and on our perspectives of the future. Although an accurate vision of the future is not possible, the process of considering other people’s view of the future, prods us to clarify our own. Keywords: project management, computers, Internet, future trends, questionnaire
INTRODUCTION In 1991, we asked: “what would project management be like in 20 years?” To answer this question we surveyed twenty-five academic and industry experts concerning future trends in computers for project management. The paper, “Project Management and Computers in the Year 2010,” (Froese 1991) interpreted the results of the questionnaire and attempted to make predictions about the future. The results were discussed in seven sections: The project management environment, computer hardware capabilities, integration and connectivity, programming languages and software development, user interfaces, and computer applications for project management of construction. Today, in 1996, we are again asking the same question. Already we see a change, since in 1991 the questionnaire medium was restricted to facsimile and today it has been extended to electronic mail and World Wide Web forms (the questionnaire, this paper, and the previous paper are accessible at http://www.eng.unb.ca/civil/pm2015/). We continue to seek responses to this survey and encourage readers to complete the questionnaire at this location or request a copy from the first author. We solicited responses from experts and announced the questionnaire on the Cooperative Network for Building Researchers, an e-mail distribution list with a wide membership from around the world. This paper includes the responses of 29 respondents who are listed in the Acknowledgments. We have analyzed these responses and have generated the statistics given in this paper based on them. However, we have several cautions: a) these respondents are not representative of the spectrum of opinion in industry and b) another person might interpret the responses differently. Respondents averaged 30 minutes to complete the questionnaire. All respondents did not respond to all questions. The goal of this paper is to share some speculations about the role of computers in project management and construction in the year 2015 as well as to compare these predictions to those of the previous paper. THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT ENVIRONMENT Almost 80% of respondents said that the number, size, and type of companies involved in construction projects as well as the relationships between them will be different in the year 2015. The respondents commented that the number and size of companies will be reduced by 2015. These companies will be more specialized and horizontally integrated; there will be more teamwork and partnerships between firms. Slightly over 50% of respondents said that the need to meet face-to-face and to visit the project site will be significantly reduced through computing and information technology. There will be less need for information exchange during meetings but establishing rapport and relationship building will continue to be important. “Meetings are as much about contact as agenda.” A high percentage of respondents suggested that new computer technologies will have a positive impact on the market potential/competitive advantage (85% see below) and the effectiveness in managing projects (95%). Computer technologies “will enable smaller companies to compete.” Less that 30% of respondents felt that new computer technologies will have an impact— either positive or negative—on working environment and job satisfaction; the remainder felt that there would be no impact or close to no impact. Some view these technologies as having a negative impact on the worker but a positive impact on management. “The future will allow choice of the working environment, at home or in an office.”
New computer technologies will reduce the size of project management teams (80%). Workers will be supported more by computer technology and less by secretaries, archivists, and mail handlers. The size of the project management team may fluctuate more throughout the life of the project in order to minimize costs.
50
46% 39%
40 30 20
11%
10
4%
0 1
2
3
4
5
1=positive; 3=no impact; 5=negative
Figure 1: Impact of new computer technologies on market potential/competitive advantage Jana Lee finishes her breakfast and walks into the spare bedroom she has converted into an office on the morning of April 1, 2015. Jana works for a firm called Delta Allied Inc. located in Edmonton, Alberta. Delta along with many other construction firms at the time, underwent a major shake down in 2013; originally Delta (Prime) provided “total project management” through long-term working relationships with subcontractors. Now that Delta is restructured (down sized) they have found a profitable market niche working within an alliance of firms that offer services similar to that of Delta Prime; the alliance relies on technology and consultants to provide many of the responsibilities that were formerly centralized. Delta is currently a member of an alliance of specialty firms that is preparing a proposal for the construction of an expansion to the West Edmonton Mall. Jana is the proposal coordinator for the team. COMPUTING SYSTEMS Over 70% of respondents believe that the speed, memory capacity and relative economy of computing systems will increase at a somewhat faster rate of change over the next 20 years compared with the past 20. However, one comment was that the speed of hardware development is no longer relevant, since the speed of cultural acceptance is more constraining. Most respondents (90%) said that world wide networking among all computers will be the norm. When asked how much effort the development of new software will take in 2015 compared with the present, respondents were almost evenly distributed over the scale of significantly less to significantly more. Comments touched two extremes: a) plug and play software will focus on standardization and user friendliness, and b) complex applications
will multiply the effort required. Several commented that new software will be incomparable to the present. The sources of software used by project managers was distributed as shown in Figure 2: E (10%) D (12%)
A (34%)
C (14%)
B (30%)
A Commercial developers of software for general uses B Commercial developers of software specifically for project management C Software developers within the project manager’s company D Software developers within the project management team E Project managers themselves Figure 2: Origin of project management software When asked what the respondents thought would be the most important development in programming languages by 2015, they suggested that: “It should be possible to speak and give instructions to computers” “Totally hardware independent” “Java, VRML (Virtual Reality Markup Language)” “Reusable software components” The questionnaire asked how often seven user interfaces would be used for project management tasks in 2015. Mean responses ranged from approximately 2.0 to 3.5 on a scale of 1=always, 3=often and 5=rarely. The following list is arranged starting with the interfaces expected to be most often used, to those least often used: a) graphical user interfaces (eg., windows, icons, mice or other pointing devices), b) voice and video input and output, c) intelligent agent mediated interfaces (advanced electronic agents which act on high level instructions), d) “electronic pen” handwritten input, e) “virtual reality” interfaces (e.g., 3D video goggles, “fish tank” room-sized 3D interfaces, feedback from sensor gloves, etc.), f) paper printouts. Other interface suggestions included: eye control, laser holograms, and thought input and output.
“Good morning George”, calls Jana as she enters the room. “Morning”, replies her computer. The “screen” of her computer is projected onto the wall across from her desk (using reflective molecular technology that generates a resolution of 10,000 x 10,000 from a beam of light). On her desk is a camera for sending her video image during meetings with team members; behind Jana’s desk is a 2 m x 2 m “live” panel that displays a still or video image.) There is a small hard drive that has 1 gigabyte of RAM in the bottom drawer of her desk. “Jana, don’t forget today is your mom’s birthday.” Jana quickly prepares a hologram of herself singing Happy Birthday to her mom and George sends it off to her in China. APPLICATION AREAS The respondents were asked what role 12 computer application areas will play in supporting project management in 2015. We have divided these computer application areas into three groups. The first group includes applications that are expected to play a fundamental role in supporting project management by 2015. (These applications areas had a mean response of between 1.5 and 1.7 on a scale of 1=fundamental, 3=useful, and 5=no role.) They included: a) project scheduling, b) project performance monitoring and control, c) project estimating, and d) CAD. The second group are expected to play a role midway between fundamental and useful (they had means of between 1.7 and 2.0). They included: a) general business application areas (e.g., writing, accounting, financial planning, etc.), b) cost/schedule/ productivity analysis, c) coordinating construction operations, d) planning and design of construction operations, and e) planning, controlling, and advising, for quality, safety and environmental management. The third group are expected to play a role more closely approaching useful (they had means between 2.0 and 3.0 on the same scale). This group included: a) advisor systems for construction methods, b) legal advice systems, and c) field automation and robotics. The following distinguishing features were observed: the first group includes areas that are primarily numeric and that have been used practically for many years; the second group are also in use today, but are more subjective; and the third group includes areas for which applications are not available generally today. It is also interesting that all applications areas listed received a mean response indicating that they would play more than a useful role (the highest mean was 2.6). Typical computer programs of today could be described as being largely stand-alone applications that “own” their own data and have some limited ability to exchange data with other programs through specific file formats. The respondents were given six descriptions of programs and asked which will be typical in 2015. The program descriptions and the percentage of respondents who chose each are given in Table 1 (note that respondents often chose several descriptions).
Table 1: Percentage of respondents who expect various programs to be typical in 2015 62% Applications that operate on bodies of information that they don’t “own” such as project databases 55% Applications with the ability to exchange all forms of data with other applications on demand 55% Systems that automatically search the “net” for the needed applications and data 34% Programs that are not stand-alone applications, but perform a specific function on portions of documents within an overall integrated system 21% Applications that are similar to today’s, but with more standardized and widely accepted formats for exchanging information 1% Applications that are essentially the same as today’s
“Now”, Jana says, “it’s time to get to work. George, please bring up the CAD design of the expansion.” George retrieves the current design from the “project model” and it appears on the wall projection. Jana is in the process of determining the most economical construction method so that the other firms can get to work on the details. Jana has completed her assessment and runs it through an advisor system for construction methods that George retrieves from the “net”. A few minutes later, George reports that the simulation indicates a 90% probability of $125,000 reduction in costs (19 times out of 20). Furthermore, George says that the advisor has suggested several revisions that are is better suited for the climate in the Edmonton area. INFORMATION AND INTEGRATION When asked how often computer systems will network information in the following ways, the mean responses were 1.41, 1.66, 1.72, and 2.17 respectively on a scale of 1=always, 3=often and 5=rarely. a) between designers and on-site personnel (e.g., replacing today’s paper drawings and specifications, etc.), b) throughout company’s head and site offices, c) between the various companies working on a project, and d) through industry-wide communications and information services The strongest responses were for a) and b) where 66% of the respondents answered “always.” The questionnaire asked how common six data standards (noted below) would be by 2015. Mean responses ranged from 1.9 to 2.5 on a scale of 1=very common, 3=often used, and 5=rarely used. The following list is in order of the standards expected to be most common to least common: a) general purpose inter-industry standards (e.g., HTML, SGML), b) industry standards (e.g., ISO-STEP), c) defacto industry standards (e.g., .DXF, .WKS), d) intelligent software agents that perform translation, e) project wide standards, and f) company-wide standards. The respondents were asked what role might be played by “information management” organizations for the construction industry (e.g., specializing in locating, generating,
organizing, storing and exchanging information used by design and construction companies) in 2015. There was an even split between those respondents who believed that this would be a fundamental role (45%) and those who believed that it would be a useful role (45%). Comments varied from two extremes: “this will be integrated into the operations of the organization and not be a specialty operation” to “the construction firm will no longer need to also be a computer firm.” Respondents were asked how much effort will be spent on information management issues relative to the effort that they spend today. Approximately 60% felt that “more” or “significantly more” effort would be required while the remaining respondents were evenly split between “about the same” and “less or significantly less.” Several who felt that the time would be about the same commented that it would be spent on different things, or would be much more productive time. A very high percentage, 85% of respondents, believed that design codes would be distributed in an executable form; in other words, some design codes will function like a grammar checker in today’s word processors — accepting a design as input and providing feedback on its acceptability. Comments indicated surprise to this question, e.g., “Great idea!” and “I sure hope so!” After determining the most efficient construction method, Jana transfers it to her information management consultant. Jana’s information manager will add the information to the project directory, change the permissions to allow access by all team members, notify them, and keep Jana informed of their comments. Jana has recently changed information management consultants (an action that just a few years ago would have been corporate suicide, but due to the standards adhered to by both firms, she came through unscathed). OVERALL Twenty-four of the 26 responses to the question, what is the most important way that computers will change the way project managers work by 2015, identified four main factors: a) improved communication and access to information (48%), b) decision support systems (18.5%), c) integration (18.5%), and d) improved efficiency (15%). Since this was an open ended question, the consistency of answers was surprising. (Three of the 24 respondents identified two factors, resulting in 27 responses.) The percentage of responses for each factor are given above in parenthesis. Those respondents who referred to the communication and access to information factor suggested that tele-commuting, advice from experts and from computer programs, centralized information, and seamless access to information would change the way project managers work. Integration was proposed as a method of identifying on-site interferences, of monitoring scheduled work, and of measurement and costing of building components, i.e., full integration of computer aided management activities. Expert, knowledge-based, and intelligent decision support systems were also identified along with intelligent agents. Finally there were a number of references to improved efficiency or effectiveness through routine project management functions being computerized and through the benefits of the decision support systems noted above. Several concerns were also noted: fear that although it will be easier to transfer data, companies will be reluctant to do so for competitive reasons, and fear that those people
who do not have the computer skills will not be able to be involved in project management. The last question asked was what are the most critical areas requiring the industry’s attention, research, and development in order to beneficially shape the future of computing in project management? Answers to this question were diverse. Only one theme was initially obvious: the need for data exchange standards (37% of respondents directly referred to this as one of their suggested areas). After analysis four categories were generated to represent all responses. These categories were: • improved communication and information flow (34%) • software and system development (24%) • change of attitudes and education (18%) • other (24%) Since many respondents suggested several critical areas, there were a total of 38 responses by the 27 respondents. In the improved communication and information flow category, data standards were the most predominant suggestion; however, integration of applications, interoperability, translation of data (units, currencies, and languages), Internet infrastructure, and mobile computing were also suggested. In the software and system development category suggestions ranged from finance and planning software, to decision support and construction process systems. An interesting suggestion was the need for self-teaching software for people who do not have time for traditional courses. Attitude changes that were suggested included the need for people to be willing to change, to trust each other, and to develop a data sharing culture. Ten percent of the respondents indicated a need for education, particularly in information technologies, distributed systems, and the ability to work in virtual teams. Other suggestions included the need to focus on problems not tools, the need to reduce the difficulties that are encountered when establishing or changing current software and hardware, and finally the need to maintain confidential data and thereby avoid eroding the company’s competitive edge. It’s time for a break and Jana is about to go back to the kitchen for a glass of juice when Ralph appears. Ralph is a hologram that Jana has programmed to appear at 9 o’clock every morning. Ralph and Jana typically spend about an hour a day as he takes her through the latest in software developments. Ralph is becoming impatient as it is already 10 o’clock and Jana hasn’t called for him. Jana feels badly about not being prompt with Ralph and decides the break can wait for later. “OK Ralph,” she says, “what have you got today?” COMPARISON WITH THE 1990 QUESTIONNAIRE As noted in the Introduction, a similar questionnaire was conducted in 1990. Although some questions became irrelevant and some were modified, other questions remained the same. Comparison of the responses to unmodified questions yielded five representative results, shown in Table 2. The disparities between the responses may partially be due to changes in the respondents, however we suspect underlying influences. The reversal shown for question 1.1 may be a
result of respondent’s experience and observations of radical restructuring of the construction industry between 1990 and 1996, rather than due to their prediction of changes between 2010 and 2015. There is clearly a rise in the number of those who expect hardware advances to increase at a faster rate (question 2.1), and a drop in the number of those who expect software development effort to decrease (question 2.3). This trend indicates either an increase in the development of hardware and software, or in the promotion and awareness of same. One of the most surprising results of this comparison is the consistency of answers to questions 1.3a, 3.2c, and 3.2d. CONCLUSIONS The content of this paper is very unlikely to be an accurate vision of the future, however the purpose of the paper was not accuracy, but rather was to prepare for the future. By forcing ourselves to document and distribute this vision of the future, we hope that we will have encouraged you to probe and expand your own vision. In this way, we all have the potential to be more prepared, less frustrated, and ready to take advantage of the inevitable transition. Table 2: Selected comparisons with the 1990 questionnaire Question In 1990 for 2010 1.1In 2015, will the number, size, and type of companies yes 67%* involved in construction projects, as well as the relationships between them, be essentially the same as now? yesno 1.3By 2015, will companies' proficiency in new computer positive technologies have a significant positive or negative impact on the (1 and 2) following aspects of their project management activities? 85% Market potential/competitive advantage 1 2 3 4 5 positive no impact negative 2.1How do you expect the speed, memory capacity, and relative faster economy of computers to increase over the next 20 years (1 and 2) compared with the past 20? 33% 1 2 3 4 5 faster no change slower 2.3How much effort will the development of new software take less in 2015 compared with the present? (1 and 2) 1 2 3 4 5 65% significantly about significantly less the same more 3.2 Typical computer programs of today could be described as being largely stand-alone applications that "own" their own data and have some limited ability to exchange data with other programs through specific file formats. Which of the following do you think describe the programs that will be typical in 2015? 57% ___ Applications with the ability to exchange all forms of data 63% with other applications on demand. ___ Applications that operate on bodies of information that they don't 'own' such as project databases.
In 1996 for 2015 no 79%
positive (1 and 2) 85%
faster (1 and 2) 73% less (1 and 2) 44%
55% 62%
* The percentages given indicate the proportion of responses which were in the category(s) noted, except for question 3.2 where the percentage is the mean response.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to express out sincere appreciation to the following people who contributed their time and their ideas in completing our questionnaire. Rick Best, UTS Harold Chin, Michigan State University Robin Drogemuller, James Cook Univ. Aminah Fayek, University of Melbourne Peter Fenn, MJM Partnership Pam Gillespie, Univ. of New Brunswick Connie Guss, University of Calgary Matti Hannus,VTT Building Technology Bjarni Hjardar, University of Akureyri William Ibbs, Univ. of Calif. at Berkeley Martin Jamieson, Kyle Stewart Limited David E. Johansen, U. N’umbria at Newcastle Shui-Cheong Kam Ole Jonny Klakegg, Nor. U. Sci. & Tech. D.A. Langford, University of Strathclyde
Adrian Morgan, U. of N’umbria at Newcastle Stephen Mead, East Carolina University Terry Murphy, Eastern Mechanical Systems Raymond Nkado, U. of the Witwatersrand Phillip Reece, National Research Council Jeff H Rankin, Univ. of British Columbia Brian Sloan, Napier University Annette Stumpf, US Army Corps of Eng. Per-Olof Sverlinger, Chalmers U. of Tech. Paul Tilley, CSIRO Dana Vanier, Inst. for Research in Constr. Roger Woodhead, Woodhead Consulting Shun-keung Yau, Hong Kong Polytech U. Kevin Yu, University of British Columbia
BIBLIOGRAPHY Froese, T.M., and Waugh, L.M., 1991. Project Management and Computers in the Year 2010, Proceedings of the 1991 Annual Conference of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada, May 29-31, pp. 435-444. Graham, I.S., 1995. HTML Sourcebook, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA. NCSA, 1996. “A Beginner’s Guide to HTML.”http://www.unb.ca/UNB/misc/html/htmlprimer.html (1996 March 1). St. Pierre, N.J., Waugh, L.M., Froese, T.M., 1995. “PM 2015: Future Trends in Computers for Project Management.” questionnaire available at http://www.eng.unb.ca/civil/pm2015/ (1996 March 1). Turban, E., 1990. Decision Support and Expert Systems: Management Support Systems: Management Support Systems, 2nd ed., Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, NY, USA.
