Case Study: Critical Chain Project Management Method Applied to a Multi-project System Although techniques developed in the 1950sincluding the Critical Path Method (CPM) and the Program Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT)are usually applied to time management in projects, projects still fail to achieve their time goals. In 1997, Eliyahu Goldratt proposed a method based on the fundamentals of the Theory of Constraints (TOC) called critical chain project management (CCPM) to minimize the inefficiencies identified in traditional project management methodology. The proposed method was accepted by the project management community as a viable alternative that could bring real gains. The method has some issues that should be considered regarding its implementation when using the CCPM method in a multi-project environment (Lechler, Ronen, & Stohr, 2005 Raz, Barnes, & Dvir, 2004). A multiproject environment is the formation of a network of projects of varying sizes and importance that depend on the same set of resources and are characterized by high uncertainty and high complexity. In these environments, managers are exposed, along with their staff members, to constant changes throughout the project life cycle (Milos?evic & Patanakul, 2002). Organizations that deal with multiple projects simultaneously are often accused of failures in the time management of activities (Wei-Xin, Xu, Xianlong, & Lei, 2013). Critical Chain is a project management method that focuses primarily on the management of the duration of activities, considering the allocation of resources, and is based on the principles of the Theory of Constraints (TOC). This method was initially proposed by Goldratt (1997) and later detailed by others (Blackstone, Cox, & Schleier, 2009 Leach, 2000 Peng & Jin, 2009 Steyn, 2000). To perform any activity in a project, two things are necessary: the activity input from a predecessor and a resource to perform the activity thus, the critical chain method includes both resource and activity logic constraints to complete the project on time or earlier. For Leach (2000), the evident constraint of a unique project is the chain of activities that takes the longest to complete. In environments with multiple projects, assuming these projects are carried out at the same time, the resources (people) are typically divided between the projects leading to multitasking, thus reducing the possibility of finishing the activities in the time scheduled. Evidently, at least one of these resources should be the capacity constraint of the system, so the companys resource constraint (people) becomes the drum for scheduling multiple projects. Since its proposal, the CCPM method has been accepted by part of the project management community, as evidenced in work published by Rand (2000) Umble and Umble (2000) Newbold (2008), Tian, Zhang, and Peng (2010) and Butler and Richardson (2011). These authors advocate the application of the CCPM method as a way to present concepts they consider innovative: a reduction of the initial time estimates to avoid the appearance of the student syndrome and Parkinsons law, by using time buffers at the end of the project and providing ways to address uncertainty in activity planning. In addition, resource bottlenecks as system constraints and managing the project through the indicators of its time consumption should be taken into consideration. These considerations will provide a vision of the entire system, not only focusing on each activity individually, but on the progress of the project as a whole. Acceptance of the CCPM method by the project management community was evidenced by the fact that it was included in the third edition of the PMBOK Guide (PMI, 2004) and continues to be cited within the Develop Schedule process as a schedule network analysis technique in the Project Time Management processes in the fifth edition of the PMBOK Guide (PMI, 2013). Furthermore, there is another part of the scientific community that has questioned its basis and application, as can be seen in the work published by Herroelen, Leus, and Demeulemeester (2002) Raz et al. (2004) Herroelen and Leus (2005) and Lechler et al. (2005). These researchers argue that the concepts considered to be innovative are not totally new because they were obtained from concepts or theories formulated earlier and that more empirical evidence and scientific studies are needed to demonstrate the efficacy of the CCPM method. In the literature reviewed, it was found that most of the work focuses on the analysis of the unique aspects of the CCPM method, such as time buffers (Bie, Cui, & Zhang, 2012 Peng, Junwen, & Huating, 2007 Tukel, Rom, & Eksioglu, 2006) and the application to individual projects (Balakrishnan, 2010 Long & Ohsato, 2008 Peng & Jin, 2009). These publications have made important contributions to the development of the CCPM method, but they have not shown applications in a real multi-project environment nor have they identified the key factors that may affect the performance of the critical chain project management method. Source: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/8756972819832203

Question 1 (25 Marks) Why, if there is a tendency to overestimate activity durations and add in a safety net to the end of a project, do so many projects still fail to achieve their time goals and come in behind schedule? Reinforce the explanations that Critical-Chain Project Management (CCPM) offers in the case study and outside of the case study.