Possible Discrepancy between Project management Approaches and their Appliances in the Building Practice

The ideation of different Project Management approaches and the introduction of standards and regulations in current legislation, demonstrate the many problems facing the construction sector. The paper examined [1] concerns the integration of various Project and Construction Management methodologies and UNI ISO 21500: 2013. First of all, the motivation that led me to examine this article is its singularity, that is the integration besides Project Management methodologies, also the normative mentioned and even if it was written in 2015, in my opinion it represents, if properly applied, a possible solution to the classic problems of the sector. Indeed, the aim of this work is to invite experts in the sector to reflect on a possible discrepancy between the theoretical text in question and its possible application in real cases. Brisa X [1] in this article, proposes an integration between the UNI ISO 21500: 2013 and the Project & Construction Management Systems, including Axelos’s Prince2, PMI’s PMBOK® Guide and Lean Construction, placing particular emphasis on the latter two. UNI ISO 21500: 2013 “Guidance on project management” provides a guide for project management, as well as concepts and processes that are considered to form good practice in project management. It also excludes techniques, tools and phases of a project, unlike the PMBOK® Guide and Prince2 methodologies. Then has been are introduced the Lean Construction philosophy and two annexed tools, that are the Target Value Design (TVD) and Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) management practice. They are aimed to creating the maximum value for the customer, the maximum reduction of waste, the optimization of efficiency and the integration of all people, systems, structures and business practices of the building life cycle. In essence, the author points out that if PMBOK® Guide, Prince2 and Lean Construction methodologies are used appropriately, and they are perfectly compatible with the UNI ISO 21500. In fact, unlike the same, they provide a series of processes to be respected, techniques and tools related to each of them, making flexible the choice of methodology, which is particularly useful in the construction sector.

Regard to the present work by Brioso X [1], I would like to express some reflections, born from the hypothesis of a possible discrepancy between this theoretical text and the real application in the pertinence sector. Regarding the between UNI ISO 21500 and the Project and Construction Management methodologies, there is no compatibility doubt that this can be there, as effectively demonstrated by the writing in question. The critical issues simply concern the application, which risks due to its intrinsic complexity of being mastered by only a few companies in the world. The actors involved in the construction process are various and with different functions, such as investors, managers, designers and workers et al. In traditional models, workers operate mainly in the construction phase of the building, while according to the methodologies described in the article examined; they should also be involved, in the previous phases. In this case, by integrating multiple methodologies and/or standards that should simplify the work, they could instead complicate it, especially in the construction phase, if the workers are not trained first on the change of the workflow. In the scientific papers examined and reported in the bibliography at the end of this work, I can deduce that one of the biggest challenges concerns the workers resistance to new methodologies, which although innovative, are little known by the same. Therefore, the Project Manager should not only train the staff on the new practices to be adopted, but before develop in practice a methodology that integrates everything as proposed by Brioso X, which in small medium-sized companies, for example Italian, would be a challenge that can hardly be won and would remain a privilege only for large companies. Further research on the basis of when written by Brioso X and other more recent articles could be conducted in devising a more precise and different methodology for each Project and Construction Management approach, integrated with the ISO 21500 Standard. The research could also concern how to implement these innovative methodologies within different organizations, from small and medium to large enterprises, so as to gradually stop the opposition of workers of any category of enterprise, used to working for a long time in the same way and therefore reluctant to change [2-4].

None.

No conflict of interest.

1. Brioso X (2015) Integrating ISO 21500 Guidance on Project Management, Lean Construction and PMBOK. Procedia Engineering 123: 76-84.
2. Pitti Y, Boton C, Forgues D (2019) Combining BIM and Last Planner on construction sites: an investigation of the related challenges. Procedia Engineering 164: 567-574.
3. Asri MNAM, Nawi MNM (2015) Actualizing lean construction: barriers toward the implementation. Advances in Environmental Biology 9 (5): 172.
4. ENR Smart Market Report (2013) Lean Construction: Leveraging Collaboration and Advanced Practices to Increase Project Efficiency. McGraw Hill Construction.