Iranmanesh,
H., & Madadi, M. (2008). An intelligent system framework for generating
activity list of a project using WBS mind map and semantic network. Proceedings
of World Academy of Science, Engineering, and Technology. 30, pp.
338-345. PWASET.
In this article the authors explore
alternatives that allow project teams to populate the Work Breakdown Structure
(WBS) in a manner that takes advantage of team creative synergies while
exploiting “whole brain” thinking. The
authors also advocate the use of a mind map to create more logical WBS formats
which can be inputted and calculated using existing
analytical and project tracking software.
The use of the mind map builds upon the deliverable-oriented WBS model
advocated by Rad (1999) .
This method provides a conceptual framework which
fills in the gaps left by Rad and Anantatmula (2009) in their discussion
of constructing a WBS. The authors begin
with an explanation of the merits of a robustly constructed WBS and its use in
project tracking and modeling demonstrating how the WBS can be used as a direct
input in whole project tracking. The
authors present the idea that the WBS should not be approached directly (a
method which engages only linear, left-brain centric team members), but that it
should instead be approached using a less restrictive mind map which allows for
utilization of “the full range of left and right human cortical, skills,
balances the brain, taps into the alleged 99% of [unused] mental potential]” (Iranmanesh
& Madadi, 2008, p. 340) .
Essentially a mind map allows the team to rapidly brainstorm
the end deliverables of a product in a way that captures dependencies and
relationships without forcing the project team to become bogged down in the
formalized logic of a tabular WBS. The
authors advocate this approach due to their claims that the use of a more
free-flowing format will protect against omissions and will allow the project
manager to capture creative synergies within the team.
In effectively utilizing the approach, the team begins
with the overall end-deliverable and then draws each major sub-deliverable as a
node off of the end-deliverable. This
process is repeated with each of the sub-deliverables serving as a node for any
deliverable components which can be rolled up underneath it. This process aligns with that explained by Rad
and Anantatmula (2009) in that it allows
the project to be broken down into “smaller, more manageable components” (Iranmanesh
& Madadi, 2008, p. 340) . The authors go on to further explain that the
lack of constraints within the mind mapping exercise allow team members to
understand potential risks associated with proposed mechanism of project
implementation.
This article introduces a direct method for populating
the WBS and provides for an understanding of how creativity and innovation must
be capitalized upon in order to produce a WBS that aligns with the capabilities
of the project team and the on-the-ground realities of the project. Unfortunately the authors fail to explain
fully how the mind mapping process is facilitated. In addition, the authors also shy away from showing
the final translation process where the mind map is converted into a formal
WBS. Overall, the article introduces a
useful approach which provides project teams with a necessary initiation point
in moving the conceptual scope into a workable package of deliverables.
References:
Rad, P.
(1999). Advocating a deliverable-oriented work breakdown structure. Cost
Engineering, 41(12), 35-39.
Rad, P.
F., & Anantatmula, V. (2009). Integrated project planning. Berkeley
Heights, NJ: Management Excellence, LLC.