Deakin Research Online This is the published version: Wilkin, Carla, Fraunholz, Bardo and Unnithan, Chandana 2005, Project quality management in virtual environments : a primer, in Managing modern organizations with information technology: 2005 Information Resources Management Association International Conference, Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, Pa., pp. 753-755. Available from Deakin Research Online: http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30009710 Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in Deakin Research Online. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact drosupport@deakin.edu.au Copyright : 2005, Idea Group

Managing Modern Organizations With Information Technology 753

Project Quality Management in Virtual Environments: A Primer

Carla Wilkin

Dept of Accounting & Bus. Info. Systems, The University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia, cwilkin@unimelb.edu.au

Bardo Fraunholz and Chandan a Unnithan

School of Info. Systems, Deakin University, Warrnambool, Victoria 3280, Australia,

{bardo.fraunholz, chandana.unnithan @deakin.edu.au}

ABSTRACT The rise of geographically dispersed project teams enabled by technol­ogy has made project quality management a significant challenge for organizations. This paper uses findings from a project on geographically dispersed, cooperating SMEs in the building trade, to explore whether concepts and artefacts from the Rational Unified Process® (RUP®) software development approach could be adapted and used to better manage quality in virtual projects. Our future research aims to explore the use of RUP artefacts in a virtual environment and their impact on project management and quality.

INTRODUCTION Having evolved from unique, capital-intensive, project-based industries such as construction and defense (Bryde, 2003), project management is now moving into the modern era of virtually managed projects. The rise of culturally diverse and geographically dispersed teams facilitated by networking technologies, has given birth to many complexities (Skyrme, 1998), necessitating the development of models. Moreover, emerging project management models recognize the process-oriented philosophy of quality management (Froonhof, 1995).

In this paper we posit that managing business processes as well as managing projects themselves is crucial for maintaining project quality, especially in increasingly virtual environments. This view is elicited from a project on SMEs (ref) in the building industry, with geographi­cally dispersed workforces i.e. a virtual environment. We commence 'With a contextual taxonomy providing definitions related to our focal theme, followed by a short review on current project quality models and the project management processes in the SME study. Then we explore the Rational Unified Process® and propose how its artefacts could be applied to managing project quality in virtual environments, something we will explore in a future study.

AlANAGING VIRTUAL PROJECTS Project Quality Management is the 'process required to ensure that the p,.oject will satisfy the needs for which it was undertaken. It includes all aclivlf le.s of the overall lIIol1ogcmelrl fimc/lon tiral de tennine the quality policy. Objectives and responsibility ami implemellts ,helll by means of qua lit)' plal1n lng, quality as /II·ance, qllalily control and quality im­pr:ovement, within the quality system ... ' (PMBOK, 2000: 6).

R.olfes (200 I) re ie rs to J/;Ftlial profect management as lhe way in which Ylrtual learn s co llabora~e for II fi n ite period of lime towards a spec ifi c ~()al. Kristofe l !ll. ( J995) defined a global virtua l learn to be a temporary, ~ul~urally diverse, geographi cally dispersed, ,elec troni cally communi­cating workgroup. Desouz a el al. (2003) purports Ihllt complex ities can be attributed to manag ing multi ple inlerdependencies across lime, space &lid projects in these cnvirOJlnlents.

The views of major contributors (Deming 1982; Juran 1986; Crosby 1980; Ishikawa 1985) have laid the foundational models to manage project quality. In an effort to standardise project quality management best practices, the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) developed IS09000 - a system standard that aims at a continuous cycle of planning, controlling and documenting quality in organisations (ISO, 2004). Also prevalent is the use of maturity models or frameworks to help organisations improve their processes such as software function quality deployment (Yilmaz and Chatterjee, 1997) and the Capability Maturity Model (CMM) (Humphrey, 1989). Project Management Institute (PMI) has made substantial progress with Organisational Project Management Maturity model (OPM)) (Schlichter, 2004). OPM) prescribes excellent business practices focused primarily on two aspects: choosing the right projects to execute organizational strategies, and implementing the processes, structures, and behaviors necessary to deliver projects successfully, consistently and predictably.

The Rational Unified Process (RUP®) is a framework that emphasizes addressing high-risk areas very early, by rapidly developing frequent executable releases of these parts of the system. The approach does not assume a fixed set of requirements, instead allowing for requirements to be defined as a project process evolves. Moreover, it lends itself to automation of many components but does not focus on documentation (Kuntzmann-Combelles and Kruchten, 2001).

The Model-based System (MBASE) framework (Boehm et a\., 1999) is a set of guidelines that describe software engineering techniques for creation and integration of a development model for a software project. Models to be integrated include process models such as lifecycle and risk, property models such as cost and schedule, and success models such as business case analysis and stakeholder win-win (Boehm et ai, 1999). MBASE appears to be compatible with RUP® as they have adopted similar anchor point milestones for ensuring stakeholder commitment.

THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROCESS IN SMES During a recent project (Fraunholz, 2001) with SMEs in the building trade (working virtually as cooperating partners spread over a hundred kilometres) we identified a need for project quality management as well as knowledge retention in projects. We also identified that there were significant similarities between the nature of general projects and many of the business processes within these project driven organisations. Specifically, projects consist of business processes such as an initial customer inquiry or the production process on a building site. Therefore, it seems appropriate to be looking for approaches that potentially enhance both domains.

To be able to make use of process models for project management, it is necessary to understand the processes crucial for the organisations concerned, which are directly or indirectly related to projects. In order to realize this understanding, we identified business processes between

COPYright © 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic fonns without written pennission of Idea Group Inc. is pTOhibited.

754 2005 IRMA International Conference

Figure J. On Site Production Process

. •• ,:"'*'

... uv,:n. .

cooperating SMEs in the bui lding industry and made them explicit by using the Process Modelling Language (PML) of the Multi perspective Enterprise Modelling Language (MEMO) (Frank. 1999, 2000, 2002). See Figure I for a si,mplified model of the on s ite production process.

Once all relevant business processes are formalized, it is possible to identify the interfaces between those covered by conventional project management and those of the project driven organization. This formal­ization opens up relevant knowledge about processes and assists stake­holders in implementing project. Ifl order 10 derive II fully integrated approach we nlw need a comprehensive con tro lling cOllcepl for the whole project . Whilst many can be used or adapted for business processes (Horvath, 2002), they rypically do nol take the specific organi zation al and technological aspects into account. In addition to those business processes that can also be described as projec t processes, there are many which are not directly related to the revenue-creat ing Cafe competencies that businesses perform. Yet. these proce. ses also represent necessary issues that must be accounted for. Ideally. what is sought is an integrated approach that will allow for the use of traditional project management skills and provide support in organizing and keeping track of other processes necessary for business .

Consideration of these concepts triggered the idea to manage conven­tional projects by building on the process like nature of projects in this environment, while adapting RUP@. Our research suggests that this approach would enhance quality in the implementation of general projects . Furthermore , we proposed that such an approach could be suited to more effective management of quality in virtual projects.

MANAGING PROJECT QUALITY WITH RUP® As information systems projects have different priorities. requirements and technologies, a process-oriented approach that takes quality into account is suited to ensure the best outcomes. RUP@ is a So(lware Ellgineering Process that "provides a disciplined approach to assigning tasks and responsibilities within a development organization" (Kruchten, 2002: 703). Its goal is to produce high-quality software that meets end­user needs and is produced in a predictable schedule and budget (Booch et aI., 1999). R UP has four basic concepts: worker, activity, artefact, and workflow (Priestly and Utt, 2000).

As systems are highly sophisticated and complex in nature this (I) limits the ability of clients to define the requirement in all parts and (2) software engineers to design, build and test a solution. The likelihood of success is improved jf an irerative and incremental approach is pursued. RUP® supports such an approach through addressing risk items earlier in the development cycle than other traditional methods (Rational Software Corporation , 1995). Further, the method makes frequent

executable releases that demonstrate progress in these areas which makes it positive for both parties . It enables development teams to track and document lradeoffs, decisions made in the development process and to capture and communicate business requirements (Rational Software Corporation, 1995).

Use cases and scenarios, part of the industry standard Unified Modelling Language (UML) (Fowler and Scott, 1997) , are utilized in RUP® documentation. These diagrams prescribe meaning as deliverables be­come visualizable. For example. use cases are good in prototyping phases like user interface design and often result in a high level of success (Scott, 2000; Phillips and Kemp, 2002). As use cases and scenarios are natural language descriptions, they serve as communication tools that can be shown to the customer (Utt and Mathews , 1999) and are good commu­nication vehicles amongst developers .

Managing sl£lkelwlders is not a new phenomenon in project manage­ment. However, an important lesson from system failures is thaI it becomes integral and regular during development to enhance outcomes. For example, strong involvement of the customer in planning and assessment meetings where decisions related to features, change requests and bug fixes are resolved (Hirsch, 2002). ensures exposure to aspects of the system and subsequent resolution of problematic issues. More­over. "fast and useful feedback from the customer" on these iterations ensures timely incorporation of requirements in subsequent iterations, which aids in the management of expectations (Hirsch, 2002). This is important since over inflated and poorly managed expec tations have a significant impact on an assessment of quality (Wilkin, 2001).

In essence, we purport that software comprises components which are non-trivial modules that fulfil some function. RUP@ supports compollelltizatirm in the development proces s (Rational Software Corporati on, 1995). Componentization helps ass ure quality by the creation of smaller more easily managed modules. These modules are clearly defined making them well understood by the development teams, which in turn mitigates risk . Functionality of these components can be more clearly defined, communicated and understood by the team and stakeholders alike.

UML is a globally recognized and understood modelling language (Booch et aI., 1999) which is utilized in RUP® to aid in the design and development of software solutions. Through the provision of a common framework. development efforts amongst virtual teams are easily brought togt!lher. RUP® provides a web-enabled searchable knowledge base that provides team members with guidelines, templates and tool mentors. Hands-on guidance is provided to users through tool mentors. This extensive use of documented tool sets lends itself well to Ihe management of virtual teams and the opportunity for sigllifit:alll time savings when setting up a project.

Given the geographically dispersed nature of organizations (Beise, 2004). teams work on component modul es in disparate locations . RUP@ 's provision for clearly documented componentized modules allows them 10 be assigned to individual members of development teams , meaning they can work on them in isolation. RUP® facilitates this working relationship through its incorporation of online collaborative technologies.

CONCLUSION In this paper, we explored poss ibilities for an integrated approach that could help in managing project quality by supporting regular project management processes . The project on SMEs ill the building trade, composed of geographically dispersed independent cooperating busi­nesses, identified the need for project quality management and knowl­edge retention. On examifling the RUP® approach, we propose that it could be applied to managin g project quality, especially in virtual environments.

Since RUP® prescribes how to elicit, organize and documenl function­ality and constraints early in the project life cycle, it enables project tracking while capturing and communicating business requiremellfs on a continued basis. The iterative incremental approach helps manage

Copyright © 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea GI'OUp Illc. is prohibited .

Managing Modern Organizations With Information Technology 755

stakeholder expcctations, which in turn results in better quality in projcCI implementation. RUP® supports componentization in the development proces of projcc:ts, and also reuse of modules. This aspect aids in capturing ' knowledgc' which may then be reused for other projects, or processcs 10 be managed.

Based on our research findings, we propose to explore the use of RUP® artefacts in virtual project environments to bettcr unders tand (he ir applicability and impact on project management and quality. Further wc also propose to explore the MBASE framework , which appears 10 bc similar, in the same context.

REFERENCES Beise, C.M. (2004) IT Project Management and Virtual Teams, Pro­

ceedings of the 2004 SIGMIS Conference on Computer Personnel Research: Careers, Culture, and Ethics in a Networked Environ­ment, Tucson, Arizona, USA, 129- J 33.

Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J ., and Jacobson, 1. (1999) Unified Modeling Language - User's Guide, Addison-Wesley.

Boehm, B., Egyed, A., Kwan, I., Port, D., Shah, A., and Madachy, R. (1999) Using the Win-Win Spiral Model: A case study, Computing Practices, IEEE, July, 33-44.

Bryde, D.l. (2003) Project management concepts, methods and appli­cation, International Journal of Operations & Production Man­agement, 23(7), 775-793 .

Crosby, P.B. (1980) Quality is free, New American Library, New York. Deming, W.E. (1982) Improvement of quality and productivity through

action by management, Nalional Prodllctivity Review, Winter 1981-1982, 12-22

Desouza, K.C., Jayaraman, A. and Evaristo, J.R (2003) Knowledge management in non-collocated environments: A look at central­ized vs. decentralized design approaches, Proceedings of the Thirty­Sixth Hawaii international Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-36), Big Island, Hawaii, IEEE Press.

Fowler, M. and Scott, K. (1997) UML Distilled: Applying the Standard Object Modeling Language, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachu­setts.

Frank, U. (1999) Visual Languages for Enterprise Modelling, Arbeitsberichte des Institut fOr Wirtschaftsinformatik der Universitat Koblenz-Landau. No. 18 .

Frank, U. (2000) Multi-Perspective Enterprise Models as a Conceplual Foundation of Knowledge Management Systems, Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Los Alamitos, CA, 10.

Frank, U. (2002) Multi-Perspective Enterprise Modeling (MEMO) -Conceptual Framework and Modeling Languages, Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-35), Honolulu, 10.

Fraunholz B (2001) Project Management in the German Trade Sector, Proceedings of the Twelfth Australiasian Conference on Informa­tion Systems, Coffs Harbour, NSW

Froonhof, H. (1995) Quality in Project Management, Newsletter, October, International Project Management Association.

Hirsch, M. (2002) Making RUP Agile, Conference on Object Oriented Programming Systems Languages and Applications, Seattle, Wash­ington, OOPSLA 2002 Practitioners Report, 1-8.

Horvath, P. (2002) Con/rolling, 8'h ed., Vahlen, MUnchen. Humphrey, W.S. (1989) Managing the software process, Addison

Wesley, MA.

Ishikawa, K. (1985) What is Total Quality Control. The Japanese Way, Translated by David Lu, Prentice Hall, London .

ISO (2004) ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 - in brief, URL: http://www.iso .org/ iso/en/is09000-14000/index.htm\, Accessed I 1110/04

Juran , J.M. (1986) The Quality Trilogy, Quality Progress, August, 19-24

Kristof A.L., Brown, K.G., Sims Jr, H.P., and Smith, K.A. (\ 995), "The virtual team: A case study and inductive model", In M.M. Bayerlain, D.A. Johnson, S.T. Beyerlain (eds) Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams: Knowledge work in teams, 2, 229-253, JAI Press, CT.

Kruchten , P. (2002) Tutorial: Introduction to the Rational Unified Process ii, ICSE'02, May 19-25, Orlando, Florida, USA.

Kuntzmann-Combelles, A., and Kruchten, P. (2001) The rational unified process - an enabler for higher process maturity, URL: http://www.106.ibm.com/developerworks/rational/library/content/ 03July/0000/0579/Rational_CMM_ WhitePaper.pdf, Accessed III 10/04

Phillips, C., and Kemp, E. (2002) In Support of User Interface Design in the Rational Unified Process, Australian Computer Science Communications, 24(4), 21·27.

PMBOK (2000) A guide to Project management body of knowledge, PMBOK® gUide, Project Management Institute Inc., USA.

Priestley, M., and Ut!, M.H. (2000) A Unified Process for Software and Documcmtation Development, Proceedings of IEEE Professional COII/Jnunicotioll Society International Professional Communica­tioll Conferem;e and Proceedings of , lie 18'· Al/lIIml ACM Inferna­lional Conference 011 Computer Documentation: Technology and Teamwork, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 221-238.

Rational Software Corporation (\995) Rational Unified Process: Best Practices for Software Development Teams, White paper URL: http://www.auguslana .ab .ca/-mohrj/courses/2000.winter/csc2201 papers/rup_best_practices/rup_bestpractices .html Accessed 111101 04

Rolfes, M. (2001) Virtual project management, a term paper for MSIS 489, UR L: http ://www.umsl .edu/-sauter/analysis/488jOlyapers/ rolfes.htm, Accessed 11110/04

Schlichter, 1. (2004) An insider perspective of PMls OPM3 model, Project Magazine , Volume 5, issue 2, URL : http:// www.projectmagazine .comlv 5 i2/vS i20pm3. hIm

Scott, K.V. (2000) Facilitating Process Management: The Technical Writer as Software Process Catalyst, Proceedings of IEEE Profes­sional COlI1/1II1II/cation SOCiety International Professional Com­mllnication Conference and Proceedings of the 18'· Annual ACM International Conference on Computer Documentation: Technol­ogy and Teamwork, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 269-280.

Skyrme, D (1998) The Realities of Virtual Management", Virtual Organization.Net, URL: http://www.virtual-organization .net/files/ articles/nl2-l .pdf, Accessed ) 1/10/04

UIt, M.H., and Mathews, R. (1999) Developing a User Information Architecture for Rational's ClearCase Product Family Documen­tation Set, Proceedings of the 17'· Annual International Confer­ence on Computer Documentation, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 86·92.

Wilkin, C. (2001) Quality as the Criterion for Delivered IS Effective­ness, Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Deakin University.

Yilmaz R.R. , Chatterjee S. (1997) Deming and the quality of software development, Business Horizons , School of Business, Indiana University, 40(6), 5) -58

COPyright © 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written pennission of Idea Group Inc is prohibited.