It Has Been Argued That Without Project Management ✓ Solved

It has been argued that without project management for very

It has been argued that without project management for very large projects, they are most certainly doomed to fail. Can the same be said for small projects? Explore this question and describe tools and techniques you would utilize to manage a small project. Research at least 2 resources to support your response. Address: 1) Which tools, techniques, and methods from larger projects you would still incorporate in managing a small project. 2) Roles and responsibilities for smaller projects. 3) Schedule change management process for smaller projects and how this differs from larger projects. Include an introduction and conclusion. Include references and citations and format your submission in APA format.

Paper For Above Instructions

Introduction

Project management practices are widely recognized as essential for delivering predictable outcomes on large, complex initiatives (Project Management Institute, 2017). However, the necessity and intensity of formal project management in small projects is debated. Small projects often have fewer stakeholders, shorter durations, and limited budgets, which can make heavy governance appear burdensome (Wysocki, 2011). This paper argues that while small projects can sometimes succeed with informal coordination, many established project management tools and techniques remain valuable and should be scaled rather than abandoned. The paper outlines which tools and methods from larger projects are still useful, describes typical roles and responsibilities for small projects, and proposes a pragmatic schedule change management process tailored to small projects while contrasting it with approaches used for large projects.

Value of Project Management for Small Projects

Empirical evidence suggests that formal project discipline improves outcomes across project sizes by clarifying scope, managing risk, and aligning stakeholders (The Standish Group, 2015; PMI, 2021). Small projects may not need the full suite of governance artifacts used on enterprise programs, but risks such as scope creep, unclear requirements, and schedule slippage remain (Kerzner, 2017). Therefore, the core elements of project management—clear scope definition, basic planning, risk identification, and communication—are relevant for small projects and increase the probability of success (Verzuh, 2015).

Tools, Techniques, and Methods to Incorporate

From large-project practice, the following tools and techniques should be retained and scaled for small projects:

  • Scope Statement and Work Breakdown Structure (WBS): A concise scope statement and a simplified WBS help clarify deliverables and responsibilities even on short engagements (Project Management Institute, 2017). A one-page scope with a 3–5 level WBS is often sufficient.

  • Basic Schedule and Milestones: Use a lightweight schedule (Gantt or task list) with key milestones to track progress and dependencies (Kerzner, 2017).

  • Risk Log and Simple Risk Assessment: Maintain a short risk register with probability/impact and mitigation owners. Even a table of top 5 risks adds value (Wysocki, 2011).

  • Change Control Lite: A streamlined change request form and approval threshold (e.g., any change impacting budget or schedule by more than 10%) provide control without heavy bureaucracy (Verzuh, 2015).

  • Stakeholder Communication Plan: Define who needs which information, how often, and in what format—daily standups or weekly status emails suffice for small projects (Highsmith, 2009).

  • Lessons Learned and Closeout Checklist: A brief project close checklist and short lessons-learned session capture improvements for future small projects (PMI, 2017).

These practices retain the benefits of formal project management—alignment, transparency, and risk reduction—while minimizing administrative overhead (AXELOS, 2017; Kerzner, 2017).

Roles and Responsibilities for Smaller Projects

Small projects typically require fewer distinct roles; however, clarity about responsibilities remains critical (Larson & Gray, 2017). Typical role structure for small projects includes:

  • Project Sponsor: Senior stakeholder who provides funding, removes impediments, and approves major changes. In small projects this may be a line manager who delegates day-to-day decisions (PMI, 2017).
  • Project Lead / Manager: A single person who combines planning, coordination, status reporting, and risk tracking. The lead should be empowered to make operational decisions within agreed tolerances (Kerzner, 2017).
  • Core Team Members: Subject matter contributors who perform tasks and report progress. Roles should be explicit but may be part-time or combined with operational duties (Wysocki, 2011).
  • Stakeholders / Users: Representatives who validate deliverables and provide requirements—often a small advisory group for quick approvals (Highsmith, 2009).

On small projects, role consolidation helps reduce coordination overhead. However, responsibilities for scope, schedule, budget, and quality must be assigned explicitly so that decision-making is rapid and traceable (Verzuh, 2015).

Schedule Change Management Process for Small Projects

Change control is a frequent source of delay. For small projects a streamlined schedule change management process should be defined with the following elements:

  • Threshold-Based Requests: Only changes that exceed predefined thresholds (e.g., >10% schedule extension or >$X budget impact) require formal approval from the sponsor. Minor adjustments can be approved by the project lead (PMI, 2017).
  • Simple Change Request Form: A one-page form capturing change description, impact on schedule/cost/scope, proposed mitigation, and recommended decision. Forms are stored in a shared repository for transparency (Verzuh, 2015).
  • Rapid Assessment and Decision Window: Small projects should target a short decision turnaround (e.g., 48–72 hours) to avoid blocking work. The sponsor or an empowered delegate should make decisions within that window (AXELOS, 2017).
  • Updated Baseline and Communication: Approved changes update the project schedule baseline and trigger a short notification to affected stakeholders and team members (Kerzner, 2017).
  • Escalation Path: If a requested change introduces strategic implications or cross-team impacts, escalate to a sponsor or steering group for broader negotiation (Larson & Gray, 2017).

Compared with large projects, this approach reduces paperwork and latency. Large projects typically use multi-tiered boards, formal impact analyses, and longer approval cycles to handle interdependencies and higher risk (PMI, 2021). Small-project change control focuses on speed, minimal documentation, and clear thresholds so that governance does not become a bottleneck (Wysocki, 2011).

Practical Example

Consider a three-month software enhancement with a team of four. Implement a one-page scope, a 12-week milestone schedule, a top-5 risk register, weekly 30-minute standups, and a simple change request template with a 48-hour approval SLA for sponsor-significant changes. This scaled approach preserves control and stakeholder alignment while maintaining agility (Highsmith, 2009; Verzuh, 2015).

Conclusion

Small projects are not immune to the problems that afflict large initiatives. While the overhead of enterprise-level project management is unnecessary for small endeavors, abandoning project management entirely increases exposure to scope creep, schedule slip, and miscommunication (The Standish Group, 2015). A scaled approach—retaining essential practices such as scope definition, simplified scheduling, risk logging, stakeholder communication, and threshold-based change control—yields a lean but effective governance model. Clearly defined roles and rapid decision-making ensure accountability without bogging the team in bureaucracy. In short, small projects benefit from project management, but the methods should be tailored to emphasize speed, simplicity, and pragmatic controls (PMI, 2017; Kerzner, 2017).

References

  • AXELOS. (2017). Managing Successful Projects with PRINCE2 (6th ed.). TSO.
  • Highsmith, J. (2009). Agile Project Management: Creating Innovative Products (2nd ed.). Addison-Wesley.
  • Kerzner, H. (2017). Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling, and Controlling (12th ed.). Wiley.
  • Larson, E. W., & Gray, C. F. (2017). Project Management: The Managerial Process (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
  • Project Management Institute. (2017). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) (6th ed.). Project Management Institute.
  • Project Management Institute. (2021). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) (7th ed.). Project Management Institute.
  • The Standish Group. (2015). CHAOS Report 2015. The Standish Group International.
  • Verzuh, E. (2015). The Fast Forward MBA in Project Management (5th ed.). Wiley.
  • Wysocki, R. K. (2011). Effective Project Management: Traditional, Agile, Extreme (6th ed.). Wiley.
  • Turner, J. R. (2014). Handbook of Project-Based Management (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.

Related Assignments