Article Review/Summary - "An intelligent system framework for generating activity list of a project using WBS mind map and semantic network"

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.