Relationship Management on Project Performance †MyAssignmenthelp

Question: Discuss about the Relationship Management on Project Performance. Answer: Introduction Project management is the guideline for the planning, initiation, control, execution, and closing of the work for any particular team for the achievement of the distinct objectives and goals and thus meeting the specific success criteria within a specific time period (Bredillet 2008). A project is the temporary attempt that is designed for the production of a unique service, product or result that has a definite start and ending point. The main challenge of the project management is to attain the objectives and goals within the provided constraints of the project (Burke 2013). The information of the project management is normally described in the documentation of the project that is being created at the starting of the process of development. The primary or the main constraints of a project are time, scope, budget and quality (Kerzner 2013). The secondary constraints of the project include the probable challenges or problems for the optimization of the allocation of the required inpu ts and the applying them for reaching the previously defined objectives. The object of the project management is for producing a completed project that complies with the objectives of the clients. Projects are executed by several organizations or businesses (Larson and Gray 2013). The management of the production of the projects is done by the discipline known as project management. The following report outlines a brief description about the six articles of project management by Christophe N. Bredillet. This report helps to understand the overall review of the six papers of project management by Christophe N. Bredillet. The report identifies the context of the project management research agenda and the different perspectives and the development of the research agenda literature. Comparison and Discussion of Six Papers in a series by Christophe N. Bredillet published in Project Management Journal Modern project management initiated as an subsidiary of operations research, with the adoption of techniques of optimization, developed in that field, however has subsequently widened so that at least the nine schools of thought in project management can be easily identified (Bredillet 2008). For supporting these particular developments, the project management research community requires to be a complete and recognized part of the academic community in management, so that academics in the subject can receive complete recognition for their work and the others are encouraged to track research in the specific related areas (Unger et al. 2012). Identification of different perspectives in this research agenda. There are nine different perspectives used in the research agenda. They are as follows: i) Optimization School: Modern project management has the roots in the field of the operations research of the 1940s and 1950s (Bredillet 2008). Optimization tools like the techniques of network scheduling that includes the critical path methods or CPM and program evaluation and review technique or PERT. Both of these reflect the genesis of the modern project management in the management science or in decision sciences field. ii) Modelling School: Modern project management thoughts progressed from the optimization of one or two objectives like cost and time to modelling of the entire system of project management and also the interactions among the components of the system. Governance School: The governance school had two bursts of activities (Bredillet 2008). The first burst of activity investigated about the relationship between the project management and contract management, whereas the second burst of activity looked at the procedures of governance on a particular project and in an organization that is project oriented. iv) Behaviour School: The behaviour school is apparently associated with the governance school and it takes as its premise that the project as a temporary organization is a social system, and it includes various areas that are focused on organizational behaviour or OB, communication, team building and leadership, and recently HRM or human resource management. v) Success School: The success school focuses on the success and failure of the project. Project success literature describes two main and important components of project success (Bredillet 2008). They are as follows: a) Project success factors: The elements of a project that can be influenced to increase the likelihood of success; the independent variables that make success more likely. b) Project success criteria: The measures by which the successful outcome of a project is judged is known as project success criteria. vi) Decision School: This particular school focuses on the factors that are relevant to the initiation, approval, and funding of projects, as well as factors relevant to project completion, termination, and conclusions about their success or failure (Bredillet 2008). This approach addresses economic, cultural, and political rules that cause investments in projects. Process School: This school became popular in the late 1980s, particularly in Europe (Bredillet 2008). The focus is on defining structured processes from the conceptual start of the project to achieving the end objectives. Contingency School: This school recognizes the difference between different types of projects and project organizations, considers the approaches most suitable for various project settings, and adapts project management processes to the needs of the project (Bredillet 2008). It stresses that every project is different, and so the management approach and leadership style adopted need to be adapted to the needs of the project. ix) Marketing School: This school focuses on the management of early phases of projects, identification of stakeholders and client needs, stakeholder management, formation of project organizations, interactions between clients and contractors, and internal marketing of the project to the organization (Bredillet 2008). Identification of the development of research agenda literature. The European Academy of Management or EURAM has had a significant track on the project management at all of the seven of its conferences that started from 2001 (Leach 2014). The practice of management, the academic community, and the world economy would be more enriched if project management were taken more seriously (Turner 2016). The first methodology is an unstructured and explorative search of the literature about all the alternatives to the classical view initiated this study (Todorovi? et al. 2015). It is discovered that the rethinking initiative in the United Kingdom early on in the initial process. The knowledge about the process in United Kingdom is sought out, as well as all the other ways to rethink about project management, in an explorative fashion that provided everybody with knowledge about the field and a foundation for further studies (Bredillet 2008). Through the initial process, it is found twenty six different articles, textbooks, and many more to be relevant, offering new alternative perspectives and new insights into the traditional approach (Walker 2015). Productive research normally address the factors affecting the first estimates of time and cost that is needed for the accomplishment of the project objectives to the level of the expected quality and the methods for handling deliberatel y optimistic estimates and improvement of such estimates. The Journal of Management does not have project management as one of its subject areas, although it does have technology management and the operations management (Unger et al. 2012). This particular unstructured literature review sometimes becomes a major problem, as it does not follow a proper and a structured pattern. The second methodology is the framework for the structured literature review (Nicholas and Steyn 2017). This is a more systematic and structured approach than the unstructured and explorative literature review. This type of literature review requires an explicit research method, which utilizes literature as the input. This does not utilize questionnaire, interviews or observations as the inputs (Martinelli and Milosevic 2016). There are certain steps for this particular approach. The steps for this method are as follows: i) Planning of the Review: The review is planned in the first step, as without this planning it is impossible to complete this methodology. ii) Clarification of the Scope: The second step of this systematic methodology is the clarification of the scope and the conceptualization of the topic. Searching, Evaluation and Selection of the Review: The literature review is searched, evaluated and selected in the third step of the systematic methodology (Larson and Gray 2013). iv) Analysis of the Selected Literature Review: Once the literature review is selected, the review is analyzed in the fourth step of the systematic methodology. v) Reporting and Disseminating: Finally, in the fifth or the last step of the systematic methodology, the reporting and the disseminating is done. This particular methodology is extremely useful and beneficial as it follows a proper and systematic structure or pattern for the literature review. There are eventually four typical phases that is utilized in the structured literature review (Bredillet 2008). Although it is possible to separate the phases analytically, the actual research process was iterative, however is still presented in a structured manner. The four phases of the structured literature review are as follows: This review scope is normally focused on the outcomes of the research study and the theories of the rethinking literature (Fleming and Koppelman 2016). The coverage of the systematic literature review was more comprehensive with the purpose of the inclusion of the most of the literature within the scope that is defined. It is possible to describe the literature of the project management as either classical project management or rethinking project management (Bredillet 2008). However, these two mentioned categories are not all inclusive and monolithic. The intention of the present review is for presenting the assessment of the alternative perspectives, which are emerged for the rethinking project management in the United Kingdom (Todorovi? et al. 2015). For this reason, the outset of the current study was the identification of key terms and topics from the United Kingdom study that could be utilized in further search processes (Nicholas and Steyn 2017). Initially, the major concepts are decided. The major concepts that are decided include rethinking project management and reinventing project management. In the second phase, the objective was the creation of the search process, which would encompass the literature from the initial search process in the phase one and capture the appropriate literature (Fleming and Koppelman 2016). Eventually, the proper and the significant search strings are identified through the initial study. This initial study was a highly iterative process. The first inclusion of the third phase is the core of the conceptualization of the rethinking project management is the United Kingdom based network initiative that is documented in the special problem on rethinking project management (Martinelli and Milosevic 2016). The second inclusion of the third phase is the next area that share several ideas with the initiative of United Kingdom like the broader conceptualization beyond simple execution and seeing the projects as temporary organizations that are embedded in wider environments and in the permanent organizations (Walker 2015). This area includes various pa pers taking temporary organizations as their outset. The third inclusion of the third phase is the projects as practice papers. These papers are included as they make on the actuality of the theme of the projects from the initiative of United Kingdom (Bredillet 2008). There is a high criticism between classical project management and rethinking project management thinking; although there are some writings that rethinking project management is better amongst the two. Phase 4: The analysis of the literature review is divided into two coding processes (Hill 2013). At first, the inductive analysis is being conducted with the objective of the identification of the overarching of the topics and then gradually categorizing each contribution within one of the associated categories. Six categories are identified in this process (Mir and Pinnington 2014). Although some contributions touched upon different categories, each contribution was only associated with the main category of the contribution. Critical analysis for research agenda The six papers by Christophe N. Bredillet demonstrate that project management is the developing field for academic study in management of substantial richness and diversity that can create a valuable contribution to the development of management knowledge, as well as being of considerable economic importance (Leach 2014). The six papers review the considerable development and trends of research in the subject that has been categorized into nine major schools of thought like optimization, modelling, governance, behaviour, success, decision, process, contingency, and marketing (Fleming and Koppelman 2016). According to Blomquist et al. (2010), research on any project is not only an immature field of research, however, it is also frail when it comes to understanding what occurs in projects. The authors have contributed to make project management research matter to the academic as well as to the practitioner by developing a project as practice approach, in alignment with the ongoing debate in social science research. According to Svejvig and Andersen (2015), the results of a structured review of the rethinking project management or RPM literature based on the classification and analysis of 74 contributions and in addition take a critical look at the new world. Winter et al. (2006), tells about the story of a UK Government-funded research network called Rethinking Project Management, funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council between 2004 and 2006. Winter et al. (2006) state that an important development in project management in recent years has been the emergence of a new class of projects, in areas such as organisational change and IT, integrated business solutions, and long-term public service delivery. According to Packendorff (1995), the theoretical field of project management (PM) can be described as a set of models and techniques for the planning and control of complex undertakings. The six papers or articles have proved that project management helps in achieving the objectives and goals of an organization. The main limitation of these six papers includes the unstructured methodology of literature review. This particular type of methodology becomes a major problem for any specific organization or school as mentioned. Conclusion Therefore, from the above discussion it can be concluded that project management is the method for attaining the goals or objectives of an organization. The theoretical field of project management or PM can be described as the set of techniques and models and for the planning and control of the complex undertakings. Projects have become a significant way for structuring work in most organizations and constituting one of the most significant organizational developments. First, rethinking project management or RPM is a diverse research area and a literature review can offer useful input to the conceptualization of the rethinking project management concept by establishing a more integrated view and setting boundaries. Second, an understanding of the development of rethinking project management over time makes it possible to elucidate rethinking project management with all its sub versions from a broader historical perspective, enabling us to see how the components of the current stock w ere added and basically how one can arrive at the current situation. The above report provides a brief description about the six articles by Christophe N. Bredillet. The report critically reviews the six articles. A brief description about the various methodologies is also provided in the report. References Blomquist, T., Hllgren, M., Nilsson, A. and Sderholm, A., 2010. Project?as?practice: In search of project management research that matters.Project Management Journal,41(1), pp.5-16. Bredillet, C.N., 2008. Exploring research in project management: Nine schools of project management research (part 4).Project Management Journal,39(1), pp.2-6. Burke, R., 2013. Project management: planning and control techniques.New Jersey, USA. Fleming, Q.W. and Koppelman, J.M., 2016, December. Earned value project management. Project Management Institute. Hill, G.M., 2013.The complete project management office handbook. CRC Press. Kerzner, H., 2013.Project management: a systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling. John Wiley Sons. Kerzner, H., 2017.Project management metrics, KPIs, and dashboards: a guide to measuring and monitoring project performance. John Wiley Sons. Larson, E.W. and Gray, C., 2013.Project Management: The Managerial Process with MS Project. McGraw-Hill. Leach, L.P., 2014.Critical chain project management. Artech House. Martinelli, R.J. and Milosevic, D.Z., 2016.Project management toolbox: tools and techniques for the practicing project manager. John Wiley Sons. Meng, X., 2012. The effect of relationship management on project performance in construction.International journal of project management,30(2), pp.188-198. Mir, F.A. and Pinnington, A.H., 2014. Exploring the value of project management: linking project management performance and project success.International journal of project management,32(2), pp.202-217. Nicholas, J.M. and Steyn, H., 2017.Project management for engineering, business and technology. Taylor Francis. Packendorff, J., 1995. Inquiring into the temporary organization: new directions for project management research.Scandinavian journal of management,11(4), pp.319-333. Rose, K.H., 2013. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide)Fifth Edition.Project management journal,44(3). Schwalbe, K., 2015.Information technology project management. Cengage Learning. Svejvig, P. and Andersen, P., 2015. Rethinking project management: A structured literature review with a critical look at the brave new world.International Journal of Project Management,33(2), pp.278-290. Todorovi?, M.L., Petrovi?, D.?., Mihi?, M.M., Obradovi?, V.L. and Bushuyev, S.D., 2015. Project success analysis framework: A knowledge-based approach in project management.International Journal of Project Management,33(4), pp.772-783. Turner, R., 2016.Gower handbook of project management. Routledge. Unger, B.N., Kock, A., Gemnden, H.G. and Jonas, D., 2012. Enforcing strategic fit of project portfolios by project termination: An empirical study on senior management involvement.International Journal of Project Management,30(6), pp.675-685. Walker, A., 2015.Project management in construction. John Wiley Sons. Winter, M., Andersen, E.S., Elvin, R. and Levene, R., 2006. Focusing on business projects as an area for future research: An exploratory discussion of four different perspectives.International Journal of Project Management,24(8), pp.699-709. Winter, M., Smith, C., Morris, P. and Cicmil, S., 2006. Directions for future research in project management: The main findings of a UK government-funded research network.International journal of project management,24(8), pp.638-649.