Project Management Life Cycle (PMLC)

There are three model types identified by (Wysocki 2012) which control the five Project Management Life Cycle. Only 20 percent of the projects falls under the Traditional Project Management (TPM) approach, where the Linear Project Management Life Cycle Model and Incremental Project Management Life Cycle Model applies. The other 80 percent of the projects falls under the Agile Project Management (APM) Approaches, where the Iterative Project Management Life Cycle Model and Adaptive Project Management Life Cycle Model applies. In addition to, Extreme Project Management Approach (xPM), where The Extreme Model applies.

---

 

Project Complexity and Uncertainty are the main factors to select the project management life cycle model. TPM approach is applicable when the project is not complicated, done before, and the project goals are clear. APM approach is applicable when the project goals are clear, but how to produce it is not clear, Many project managers believes that the majority of their projects falls under the APM approaches. xPM approach is applicable when neither the project goals, nor the project solutions are clear.(Wysocki 2012)

Each PMLC associated with different risks, failures, and mitigation strategies as per the following:

1-      Linear Project Management Life Cycle Model

(Wysocki, 2012, p42) Figure 2-3 clarify the process of the project life cycle (First type of TPM), which assumes that all the project goals and solutions are clear.

 

Risks associated with this PMLC:

• There is no loop back to revisit the process group or improve the deliverables based on project actual status and learning from other processes.
• There is no room for the change order request from the client, because during the launch process group if any scope change request is issued it will most probably delay the project schedule.

 Risks Mitigation:

• The client should be aware that if any changes to the project original scope occurs, it would affect the schedule completion date. A management reserve task could be added to the project schedule as well. (Wysocki, 2012,p343).
• If the project manager feels that the project will involve a numerical scope changes, then another PMLC should be selected.

2-      Incremental Project Management Life Cycle Model

(Wysocki, 2012, p44) Figure 2-4 clarify the process of the project life cycle (second type of TPM), which assumes that all the project goals and solutions are clear. However, it allow for loop back to earlier process to manage change orders.

 

Risks associated with this PMLC:

• Although, this PMLC allow for room of scope change, but this room only available between increments, not within the single one.
• Because the project deliverable partially released to the client, changes are highly expected from the end user. (Wysocki, 2012, p357)
• More client involvement in this PMLC could affect the project progress if the client response timing is slow.

 Risks Mitigation:

• The increments should not be too short to avoid more changes, and should not be too long to affect the success in the market, and the project team Intact.
• Management reserve about changes and client role should be acknowledged by the client.

3-      Iterative Project Management Life Cycle Model

(Wysocki, 2012, p48) Figure 2-5 clarify the process of the project life cycle (first type of APM), which assumes that the project goals are clear, but the solutions are not. “The objective is to show the client an intermediate and perhaps incomplete solution and ask them for feedback on changes or additions they would like to see.” (Wysocki, 2012, p48) This step is repeated until the client is satisfied.

 

Risks associated with this PMLC:

• The client is deeply involved; the second iteration cannot start without the client feedback on the first one.
• “Likely to be Multiple Scope Change Requests” (Wysocki, 2012, p385)

 Risks Mitigation:

• Because the client will be involved on the changes among the iterations, the solutions needs to be kept aligned with the business need.

4-      Adaptive Project Management Life Cycle Model

(Wysocki, 2012, p49) Figure 2-6 clarify the process of the project life cycle (second type of APM). With the exception of the term “cycles” in place of “iterations,” this PMLC is identical to iterative PMLC. However, the level of uncertainty and complexity associated with this PMLC is higher than the iterative PMLC. (Wysocki, 2012, p399)

Risks associated with this PMLC:

In addition to the iterative PMLC risks,

• This model is mainly designed for software development projects. You many face difficulties of applying this model to other project types.
• “Cannot identify exactly what will be delivered at the end of the project” (Wysocki, 2012, p405)

 Risks Mitigation:

• Because the project deliverable are not clear, the project budget cost should be shared with the client in order to provide the required funds to the project.

5-      Extreme Project Management Life Cycle Model

(Wysocki, 2012, p52) Figure 2-7 clarify the process of the project life cycle. Because the project goals and the solutions are not clear, the scope of work could be changed after each phase. Therefore, this is the highest risk PMLC model.

Risks associated with this PMLC:

• No clear directions of the correct solutions.
• Business values are not guaranteed.

 Risks Mitigation:

• Client should be aware of the project risks before starting the project.

Conclusion:

Depend on the project available information; the suitable project management life cycle to be selected. TPM is used when the project goals and solutions are known; this is applicable in the construction projects where there is a perfect design with minimal changes. APM is used when the project goals are clear where the solutions are not clear, this PMLC is applicable in the construction projects during the design phase. xPM is used when there is lack of project goals and solutions, and this PMLC could be founded in the construction field during the feasibility study.

 

References:

WYSOCKI, R.K., 2012. Effective project management. 6th edn. Indianapolis, IN: Wiley.

 

Download our Useful Planning Contents:

Name

Email address:

Leave this field empty if you're human: