Parkinson's Law in Project Management

Revision as of 13:42, 27 February 2021

Parkinson's Law states that work expands to fill the time available for its completion.^[1] It was formulated by British historian and author Cyril Northcote Parkinson in an essay for The Economist in 1955.^[2]

Originally, Parkinson's Law described how a bureaucracy can grow unrelated to its actual workload because people make work for each other by complicating work. The growth of bureaucracy depends on two factors: (1) The Law of Multiplication of Subordinates and (2) The Law of Multiplication of Work. From statistical analyses, Parkinson determined the increase in staff per year to be around 5-7% independent of its workload. Based on this, he formulated a mathematical formula to determine the annual increase in staff in any public administrative department.^[1]

The tendency in work behaviour Parkinson's Law describes, is one of the reasons why projects are delayed. Parkinson’s Law explains the behavioural aspect of scheduling. According to Parkinson's Law, a person will spent all the available time to complete a task regardless of the tasks size. This results in inefficient use of time and effort. Project managers can use this to understand employees motivation for completing tasks. In project schedule management, this is valuable knowledge when estimating activity duration. The project manager should account for this tendency when scheduling to enhance productivity. ^[3]

This article highlights areas in project management where techniques and tools are affected by Parkinson's Law. Tools to minimise the implications of Parkinson's Law are suggested and reflected upon.

Parkinson's Law is difficult to manage. It depends on how good the scheduling is, which also depends on how good resources are allocated and then there are risks, which makes scheduling uncertain at times.

Theory

In Parkinson’s essay from 1955, the law refers to the relationship between the bureaucracy and its workload. The law describes how people make work for each other by complicating the work. Therefore, a bureaucracy can grow unrelated to its actual workload. The growth depends on two factors: (1) The Law of Multiplication of Subordinates and (2) The Law of Multiplication of Work. The Law of Multiplication of Subordinates states an overworked person, seeking promotion, in an organisation has incentives to multiply subordinates instead of creating rivals by sharing their work. The Law of Multiplication of Work states that people will make work for each other by complicating it to occupy everyone. This gives the impression that the staff is overworked and lacking resources, therefore more staff is hired.

Parkinson uses the bureaucracy of the British Civil Service as an example of Parkinson’s Law. He supports his statements with statistical analyses showing that the number of ships and men in the royal navy fell between 1914 and 1928, while the number of employees in administration rose. With these analyses, he determined the rate of staff per year to be around 5-7% independent of the amount of work. He formulated the following mathematical formula to determine the annual increase in staff in any public administrative department:^[1]

x = (2k^m+p)/n

• k = number of staff with incentives multiply subordinates
• p = the difference between the ages of appointment and retirement
• m = number of hours devoted to answering minutes within the department
• n = number of effective units being administered
• x = number of new staff each year^[1]

The definition of Parkinson’s Law as known today is the first sentence of the essay (Parkinson, 1955), "It is a commonplace observation that work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion." Parkinson describes how work is elastic in its demands on time. Work becomes more complex as to fill the time before completion. Parkinson uses the example of an elderly lady spending a whole day writing and sending a postcard. A busy man could do it in three minutes, yet the lady spends the day worrying and stressing over sending the postcard.

In project management, this is the definition applied. Parkinson’s Law describes the tendency that people will spent all of the allocated time to complete a task regardless of the time it actually takes to complete it. Likewise, a person will not complete a task before a deadline, resulting in inefficient use of resources and time (ref). For instance, a person has one week to complete a task that takes 8 hours, but instead of completing it on the first day using all of their effort, the person will use less effort and spent a week.

Implications on Project Management

The behaviour associated with Parkinson’s Law has a big influence on project performance. ^[4] Along with student syndrome, it is one of the main reasons why deadlines are not met and projects are inefficient.

Within project scheduling, it is important a project manager is aware of it. According to Parkinson's Law, it is assumed that a task either is completed on time or is delayed. The task is not completed before time. To achieve the most efficient use of resources and time, the time allocated for each task needs to correspond with the time it actually takes to complete it. If the allocated time is too short the task is delayed and if the allocated time is too long unnecessary time is spent on the task. However, it is difficult to accurately estimate the time needed as it depends on a number of factors, such as the estimators knowledge about task, the competencies of the person allocated to the task, and available resources.

Besides scheduling, risk management and decision-making are also affected by Parkinson's Law.

Scheduling

In project scheduling, the objective is to make a detailed plan of activity durations and dates to ensure timely completion of a project. The plan is continuously monitored and controlled and used as a tool for communication and managing stakeholder's expectations.^[3]
In terms of Parkinson's Law in scheduling, the concern is whether time and resources are used efficiently. Parkinson's Law can affect several aspects of scheduling and result in inefficiency if not properly managed. It is important project managers are aware of the behaviour caused by Parkinson's Law and how they can minimise it with scheduling. Clearly, the quality of a schedule depends on other factors such as the number of available resources and the allocation. However, in the following section the focal point is purely project schedule management.

According to the PMI standard 'Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide)' (2017), project schedule management consists of six processes to properly manage the completion of a project. The processes are: (1) Plan Schedule Management, (2) Define Activities, (3) Sequence Activities, (4) Estimate Activity Durations, (5) Develop Schedule, and (6) Control Schedule. The fourth process, estimate activity durations, has a great influence on whether Parkinson's Law is showing. To minimise the implications of Parkinson’s Law, the estimated activity durations need to correspond to the time it takes to complete the activity with the estimated resources and with maximum effort. This process requires an estimation of the amount of work effort required to complete the activity and the amount of available resources estimated to complete the activity. However, estimation of durations is challenging and depends on a number of factors, such as the available data, the estimators knowledge, etc. and the technique used. Estimations of durations also tend to be...

Parkinson's Law in agile vs sequential projects

The following scheduling techniques and tools can be subject to Parkinson's Law if not properly managed:

• Three-point estimating is used to determine the duration of an activity in the fourth process, estimate activity durations. Unlike techniques with the same purpose, three-point estimating considers estimation uncertainty and risk and estimates three durations: The most likely, the optimistic, and the pessimistic. While the three-point estimate clarifies the range of uncertainty, suggesting three durations allows for Parkinson’s Law. If the pessimistic estimate is the longest allowed time while meeting the project completion, people will assume they have more time.^[3]

• Reserve analysis is used to determine the amount of reserve needed to handle contingency. Duration estimates can include contingency reserves, also known as schedule reserves, to account for uncertainty. The contingency reserve should be used, reduced, or eliminated as the project progresses and more information is available.^[3] According to Parkinson's Law, instead of using the reserve on contingencies, people will assume they have more time to complete an activity without delaying the project and use it. The contingency reserve is most likely used rather than reduced or eliminated.

When dealing with Parkinson’s Law, it is important to set realistic, but tight deadlines. By having contingency reserves, you risk Parkinson's Law.

• Critical path method (CPM) is one of the techniques used to develop a schedule in the fifth process. CPM is used to identify the shortest time to complete a project based on the estimated activity durations. The schedule network analysis technique calculates the early start, early finish, late start, and late finish dates for all activities without regard for any resource limitations. CPM helps the project manager determine if a schedule is on the critical path.

If not properly managed, people will start an activity on its late start date, consuming all float and turning all paths critical.^[3][5][6]

The following techniques could compromise efforts to minimise the implications of Parkinson's Law:

• Crashing is a common technique used when an activity or project is behind schedule. More resources are added to shorten the time to completion.^[3] Crashing may be applied to a project delayed by the implications of Parkinson's Law.

Parallels can be drawn between the observations Parkinson made in his essay and The Mythical Man-Month by Frederick Brooks (1975). Brooks' Law states that adding people to a late project, makes it later. This statement is based on Brook’s own experiences at IBM. When a software project was behind schedule, the project was crashed. However, by adding more people, bureaucracy and training increased. Instead of being more effective, the project was delayed further.^[7][3] Both laws have in common, that the increase in bureaucracy, leads to inefficiency. If a project is affected by Parkinson's Law, crashing may be a technique applied to salvage the schedule. However, crashing can increase risk and cost and may actually have the opposite effect and delay the project even further.

• Multitasking is typically used when a project, due to some unexpected event, needs to synchronise activities to stay within schedule. Multitasking is unavoidable in most projects as activities often are related.^[8]

The nature of multitasking increases the risk of enabling the behaviour caused by Parkinson's Law. Multitasking requires a number of activities to be completed within the same time frame, thus requiring people to divide their attention and effort between each activity. This approach contradicts Parkinson's Law describing that the least amount of time and maximum effort should be used to complete an activity. Attention is diverted from the single activity and time is spent on shifting between activities.^[8]

===Resources=== missing ref!!

As a result of inadequate scheduling, human and financial resources are used unproductively. Resources are allocated according to the schedule to ensure both human and financial resources are available to complete the project. If all of the allocated time is spent on completing an activity, independent on the actual completion time, so are the resources. If time is spent more productively, the resources can be applied to another part of the project or organisation.
The typical response to a delayed activity is to apply more resources to stay within schedule. If the activity is delayed due to Parkinson's Law, resources have initially been spend unproductively and to recover from this, more resources are added. Parkinson's Law plays a great role in project performance because it affects how and when projects are delivered.
This corresponds well with Parkinson's initial observations. If a person feels overworked, they will hire subordinates and complicate the work to occupy everyone. Resources are spent inefficiently and may lead to further stress and complexity.

expenditure expands to budget - if a project is scheduled wrong and assumes more costs are needed, then these costs are used up

Risk Management

According to Parkinson's Law, people complicate their work to fill the available time to completion. Inherently, this can lead to a number of risks. As described by Parkinson, Parkinson's Law in a bureaucracy leads to increased risk of stress and higher costs. In projects, tasks and activities may appear more complex than they actually are and lead to increased levels of stress. Additionally, inefficiency results in higher costs. By managing Parkinson's Law, the manager can also account for potential risks that affect the project's performance.
In terms of risk management,

doing more with less, due to PL set aggressive targets and do more with less

Decision-making

Grow of bureaucracy, Studies have shown that the size of a cabinet is negatively correlated with government effectiveness. In large groups, smaller groups begin to form and block each other, which is why decision-making is difficult to manage in large groups.^[9]

Typically a project is no larger than 20, but this can affect decision making

how to be productive in meetings, spending time efficiently

Suggestions to minimise the implications of Parkinson’s Law

Critical Chain Project Management

Critical chain project management (CCPM) is an alternative approach to scheduling that actively seeks to eliminate the implications of Parkinson’s Law. This method assumes people purposely overestimate activity durations to ensure timely completion. This results in a false sense of security as people will use all the allocated time and safety time according to Parkinson’s Law. In CCPM, the safety time of each individual activity is allocated into one central buffer, a project buffer, at the end of the schedule. The activity durations are based on a 50% confidence level, instead of the commonly used 80-90% in project management. By aiming for durations that are too tight, attention is not diverted from the task and multitasking is avoided. Furthermore, if activities are delayed, it will not cause the entire schedule to slip. With a 50% confidence level, the activity will not be complete within the estimated duration all the time. Therefore, deadlines cannot be set. This also eliminates the possibility of Student Syndrome.^[10][11][5]

Disadvantage: Simplifies scheduling, buffer can be unnecessary long

Incencitives to Encourage Early Finish

Risk Management

Monitoring and Controlling

This is important to handle parkinson's law

Annotated bibliography

References

1. ↑ ^{1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3} Parkinson, C. Northcote (November 19, 1955) "Parkinson’s Law", The Economist. Retrieved 13 February 2021.
2. ↑ Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica "C. Northcote Parkinson", Britannica. Retrieved 13 February 2021.
3. ↑ ^{3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6} Project Management Institute, Inc. (September 22, 2017). "Chapter 6: Project Schedule Management". Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) (6th ed.). Project Management Institute, Inc. (PMI). pp. 173–230. ISBN 978-1-5231-1232-6.
4. ↑ Chen, B.; Hall, N. G. (June 12, 2020). "Incentive schemes for resolving Parkinson’s Law in project management". European Journal of Operational Research 288. pp. 666–682.
5. ↑ ^{5.0 5.1} Project Management Institute, Inc. (PMI) (July 8, 2019). "Chapter 2: Schedule model principles and concepts". Practice Standard for Scheduling (3rd ed.). Project Management Institute, Inc. (PMI). pp. 9–43. ISBN 978-1-5231-2398-8.
6. ↑ Kinser, J. (2008). "The top 10 laws of project management". Paper presented at PMI® Global Congress 2008—North America, Denver, CO. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute. Retrieved 21 February 2021.
7. ↑ Roth, D. (December 12, 2009) "QUOTED OFTEN, FOLLOWED RARELY", CNN. Retrieved 21 February 2021.
8. ↑ ^{8.0 8.1} Reddy, S. & Espejo, J. (2013) "Is multitasking the enemy?" PM Network, 27(2), 24–25. Retrieved 24 February 2021.
9. ↑ Wen, T. (May 22, 2020). "The ‘law’ that explains why you can't get anything done", BBC. Retrieved 21 February 2021.
10. ↑ Cooper, J. (2013). Improving focus and predictability with critical chain project management. Paper presented at PMI® Global Congress 2013—North America, New Orleans, LA. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
11. ↑ Herroelen, W. & Leus, R. (2000). On the merits and pitfalls of critical chain scheduling. Paper presented at PMI® Research Conference 2000: Project Management Research at the Turn of the Millennium, Paris, France. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.