Independent Project Analysis (IPA) has been benchmarking small projects for over 15 years and our definition of “small” has changed over time to keep pace with escalation in the project world. Today, IPA defines a small project as anything less than US$10 million. Most folks seem to find that to be a pretty reasonable threshold.

 

However, we get a fair number of questions about the lower limit. Project groups want to know: Does IPA’s research on small projects apply to even the very smallest of small projects? Do the same Best Practices for Front-End Loading (FEL), team development, and other areas hold true not just for a $5 million project, but also for a $500,000 project? How can a good work process be made “fit-for-purpose” for very small projects?

 

Last year, IPA launched a study on “microprojects” (IPA Newsletter 2011-Volume 3, Issue 2) to answer these questions.  I won’t leave you holding your breath—of course IPA still recommends developing plans for microprojects! Yes, even a microproject requires a schedule and other plans for execution. But we did identify some ways that these activities can be streamlined while still adding value. Here’s a short summary of our findings—heck, let’s call it a micro-summary.

 

First of all, IPA defined a microproject as being less than US$400,000. Based on our data and linking of practices with outcomes, that was about the point at which you see the most value (and least risk) of moving to a very simplified work process. Now, if your site’s microproject threshold is higher or lower, that doesn’t mean you should run out and change it. Depending on your project portfolio, a different threshold might make sense. However, if you’re throwing the full weight of your small project work process at projects of just a few hundred thousand dollars, you’d stand to add value by developing a more streamlined version.

 

Second, IPA found an interesting conclusion about FEL. For microprojects, applying formal software-based resource planning for site project portfolio management is associated with significantly better cost performance, even if individual microproject schedules are not yet resource loaded at authorization. In other words, we need to measure schedule definition at the portfolio level. Schedule definition at authorization is not as critical for microprojects, provided that the resource loading is done before the start of construction.

 

Finally, how can you streamline the work process for microprojects? We observe a full range of approaches, from systems that apply a large project work process to their microprojects to systems that barely use a gated process (what some jokesters refer to as “selexecute”–lumping Select, Define, and Execute all into one phase, with no gates or approvals in between). In general, microprojects seem to do well with two gates rather than the usual three that we see for larger projects. Some of the best systems we’ve seen have streamlined their work process by eliminating upwards of 50 percent of their deliverables, while still maintaining those that are most important for good definition.

 

Whether next year’s economy is grim or rosy, one thing is for certain–you will be executing some microprojects. To learn how your microproject system stacks up against the competition, you can contact me at pkulkarni@ipaglobal.com.