Planning, Monitoring and Control SIGAGM 2015
Project EVE
Sponsored by the APM through their 2014 Research FundConducted by:
Professor David Bryde - Liverpool John Moores University Roger Joby – 1to1to1
Originally – Earned Value Evaluation (EVE)Now much more
Research Question?
• Does Principal Agent Theory provide an explanation for different levels of project success?
The “Agency” Problem
• Conflict over goals
• Opportunistic behaviour
• Asymmetry of information
We also looked at agency costs, trust, uncertainty, information and level of concealment.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Num
ber o
f pati
ents
Months
Patient Recruitment
Plan Actual
Target reached 3 months early
Database locked 4 months late
Example From Clinical Research
Example From Clinical Research
• CRO held to account over recruitment predictions-opportunistic behaviour.• Blame culture in Pharma –
opportunistic behaviour that often leads to asymmetry of data.• Unrealistic time lines driven by
commercial pressure – Conflict over goals
Environmental background
Conceptual Model (adapted from Handley & Benton Jr. 2009)
Strategic Evaluation• Supplier Evaluation
• Preferred provider status by selection of the favoured few.
• Awareness of agency theory.
Relationship Management
• Not just a relationship survey
Contractual Completeness
• Does your contract help or hinder?
What are your Contract choices?
Project Performance - How did we measure it?
• Not using the Iron Triangle
• We used Sponsor / CRO satisfaction
Implications of Sponsor /CRO satisfaction
Selection of cases
• 4 projects – 2 from construction and 2 from clinical trials.• All Type 1 projects in Turner &
Cochrane’s Goals-and-methods matrix
• Varying levels of “project performance” across the 4 projects.• All were outsourced, so Principal
(Sponsor) and Agent (CRO) relationships present.
Source data
• Recorded Interviews, Transcriptions, Coding of comments.
Examples of Positive Comments
• Positive – asymmetry of data “But the key success criteria there is having a one version of the truth”
• Positive – Opportunistic behaviour “probably the key is having the right behaviours and attitudes. You know if you want engagement with second tier and first tier we’re not gathering data to beat them up with we’re gathering data and analysing the data and providing valued outputs to the benefit of everybody and that was the environment that we created with the second tier”
• Positive - Goals “very passionate about two things, 1) ensuring that our contractors are financially successful - 2) paying them what they are due and on time”
Examples of Negative Comments
• Negative – asymmetry of data “We requested the information but the information has not come back”
• “ But again it doesn’t directly reflect on cost so not really, so it’s, yeah, just a crude look at, at the timelines”
• Negative – Opportunistic behaviour “The costs, there were a lot – I was surprised by the number of out of scopes that there have been which we are actively addressing at the moment”
• “So, I think the information from the beginning is always incorrect and they base their tenders on that because they want to get a contract”
• Negative - Goals “program its, its changed quite a bit as we’ve gone through and we’ve actually struggled to agree a program with then”
Some preliminary results – data from Sponsor and supplier combined
Clinical Trial Case 1 – Success for Sponsor and CRO – “Symbiotic”
Clinical Trial Case 2 - Failure for Sponsor and CRO – “Toxic”
Construction Case 1 - Success for Client not sure about Contractor - A degree of “Parasitic” behaviour?
Construction Case 2 - Client not completely happy Contractor qualified success - A degree of “Parasitic” behaviour?
Back to the research question
• Does Principal Agent Theory provide an explanation for different levels of project success?• YES!
So what can we do with this information?
Project Health Check
Measuring how well projects deal with agency problems.Looking at the project to see: • How well are Sponsor and
Supplier goals are aligned.• How likely it is that asymmetric
information will be problem.• Is there an opportunity for
opportunistic behaviour?
A project health check encouraging better planningAreas to look at in the planning stage:• Project Plan• Resource Plan• Financial Plan• Quality Plan• Risk Plan• Communication Plan• Procurement Plan• Contract
Examples from contractsNEC Contracts - as used on the 2012 Olympics
Early warning provisions -there is a duty on both sides to notify each other if they become aware of a matter that:
1. Increase the total price
2. Delay completion
3. Delay meeting a key date
4. Impair performance
Typical clinical project
Monitoring frequency every 6 weeks
A project health check encouraging better project performanceAreas to look at in the delivery phase:• Time Management• Cost Management• Quality Management• Risk and Issue Management• Communication Management
and stakeholder engagement
A project health check encouraging better project performance
Post-delivery phase:• The finding feed in to Strategic
Evaluation (for future projects)
Conceptual Model
Strategic EvaluationThe Extent to which the Sponsor performed a
comprehensive evaluation of the Implications of outsourcing the project to a specific Supplier.
Relationship ManagementThe degree to which the Sponsor and the
Supplier strive to maintain a mutually beneficial relationship during the project.
Contractual CompletenessThe extent to which the Sponsor (and the Supplier) develop a contract which effectively coordinates resources and
addresses identified inter-organisational (agency related) risks.
Project PerformanceThe performance of the project as measured by the
Sponsors level of satisfaction
Next Steps
• Build on our current experience to develop and use the Project Health Check guidelines to improve project performance.• Establish the concept as a
recognised Project Management process.• Continue with the research
(further funding from the APM and Commerce).
Any Questions for Roger
Top Related