Adherence between project management practices and environmental critical factors in biotechnology companies

Linares, Ian Marques Porto; Alves, Marlon Fernandes Rodrigues; Tristão, Raphael Lovadine; Amaral, Daniel Capaldo

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Original Article • Gest. Prod. 26 (2) • 2019 • https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-530X2269-19 copy

Adherence between project management practices and environmental critical factors in biotechnology companies

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

The traditional project management, agile project management and the combination of both, called hybrid project management or a combined approach are among the project management strands. This study analyzes the critical factors of projects in the area of biotechnology and the appropriateness of approaches to the development projects of the area. The data were obtained from the questionnaires administered in a sample of incubated biotechnology companies from the state of São Paulo in the regions of Ribeirão Preto and Piracicaba. The results indicated that the analyzed companies, which were from different fields of biotechnology (agricultural, pharmaceutical and industrial), have peculiarities regarding the characteristics of the projects and the project management environments of these companies involve both traditional and agile management, suggesting that initiatives of project management techniques should consider a hybrid project management model.

Keywords:
Critical success factors; Agility evaluation; Technology development process; Agile project management; Innovative project management; Project management

Characteristic	Traditional project management approach	Agile project management approach
1) The way the project plan is elaborated	There is a single project plan, which covers the total project time and contains the products, deliveries, work packages and activities.	There are two project plans: a) a general plan that considers the total project duration time, but which contains only the main project products; b) a short-term (iteration) plan that contains only the deliverables and activities for a fraction of the project time.
2) The way the project scope is described	Exact description of the final result by means of text, with contractual type norms, objective numbers and performance indicators.	Description of the final result in a comprehensive, challenging, ambiguous and metaphorical way.
3) The level of detail and standardization with which each project activity is defined	The activities are described in a standardized way and organized into WBS-type lists. The descriptions contain codes and are classified into sets of work packages, deliverables and project products.	There is no standard for describing activities, which can be written in the form of stories, problems, actions or deliveries. There is no attempt at organization, just the prioritization of what should be done at the moment.
4) The planning horizon of the project team activities	The activity lists are valid for the total project horizon.	Activity lists are valid for an iteration, which is defined as a fraction of the total project time.
5) The strategy used to control project time	Reports with performance indicators, written documents, audits and analysis of phase transitions are used. Team meetings are not frequent.	Visual devices are used that indicate physical deliveries of the final result (posters, self-adhesive, etc.). Meetings are short and frequent.
6) The strategy used to guarantee the achievement of the project scope	The project manager evaluates, prioritizes, adds or changes project activities so that the results are consistent with the scope of the project signed with the client.	The client evaluates, prioritizes, adds or changes the final product of the project, according to the experience with the results achieved. The team changes activities to obtain the results proposed by the client.

Set of questions	Number of questions	Quantity
Characterization of the Company (CC)	1, 2, 3	3
Characterization of Respondent (CR)	4	1
Critical Agility Factors (CAF)	5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25	14
Performance in Agility (PA)	22, 23, 24, 26, 27	5
Total		23

Universidade Federal de São Carlos Departamento de Engenharia de Produção , Caixa Postal 676 , 13.565-905 São Carlos SP Brazil, Tel.: +55 16 3351 8471 - São Carlos - SP - Brazil
E-mail: gp@dep.ufscar.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Source: Eder et al. (2015)Eder, S., Conforto, E. C., Amaral, D. C., & Silva, S. L. (2015). Diferenciando as abordagens tradicional e ágil de gerenciamento de projetos. Production, 25(3), 482-497. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0103-65132014005000021.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0103-65132014... .