THE IMPACT OF INCREASING TEAM SIZE ON PROJECT PRODUCTIVITY

Year 2017, Volume: 4 Issue: 2, 103 - 112, 30.06.2017

Yueh-yuan Lai Chiu-chi Wei , Chiou-shuei Wei

https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2017.465

Abstract

Purpose- Enterprises must increase operational efficiency to gain
competitive advantage in this stiff global competition, and operational
efficiency is resulted from fast problem resolution and opportunity
creation.  Project management has been
regarded as an effective and efficient approach to quickly solve current
problems and create future opportunities. 
Speed is the most vital factor when facing with problems and
opportunities; slowness will breed a small problem to a huge one, even
unmanageable, whereas a not quick enough pace will lead to opportunity
untouchable and fade away.  

Methodology- The challenge facing a project manager in this era is
how to complete a project quickly, and one of the most commonly used methods is
crashing, which implies shortening the project duration by increasing the
number of workers and equipment, and by working overtime. Traditionally, it is
a common believe that increasing the number of workers can certainly reduce the
project length; even the law of diminishing return is widely recognized. Thus,
this study intends to explore the interaction of number increase and
diminishing return, and develop a quantitative model to concurrently consider
the number of workers, worker experience, worker training and level of team
work to obtain the most suitable number of worker increase, to avoid waste of
human resources and optimize personnel utilization. Findings- To demonstrate the applicability of the proposed model,
this study uses two examples to illustrate the solution procedures.  The results indicate that although the
project productivity can increase along with the increase of workers, when the
number of workers reaches a certain level, even the worker is further
increased, the project cannot be positively benefited; therefore, the increased
workers are not only wasted, but also decrease the entire project productivity.

Conclusion- Project managers can use the model
to identify the optimal number of additional team members, thus improving human
resource management. This study is the first theoretical verification of the
law of diminishing returns and provides a more in-depth understanding of
crashing, which has both academic and practical value to project management. 

Keywords

Project, project management, crashing, law of diminishing return, productivity

References

• Christina, S.Y. & Danny, S. 2008, “Project success and project team management: Evidence from capital projects in the process industries”, Journal of Operations Management, vol. 26, pp.749-766.
• Drucker, P.F. 1998, Managing in time of great change, London Penguin Books, UK.
• Deckro, R.F., Hebert, J.E., Verdini, W.A., Grimsurd, P.H. & Venkateshwar, E. 1995, “Nonlinear time-cost trade off models in project management”, Journal of Computer and Industrial Engineering, vol. 28, no. 2, pp.219-229.
• Elmaghraby, S.E. & Salem, A.M. 1982, “Optimal project compression under quadratic cost functions”, Applications of Management Science, vol. 2, pp. 1-39.
• El-Sabaa, S. 2001, “The skills and career path of an effective project manager”, International Journal of Project Management, vol. 19, pp.17.
• Falk, J.E. & Horowitz, J.L. 1972, “Critical path problems with concave cost-time curves”, Management Science, vol. 19, pp.446-455.
• Hsu, J., S.C., Shih, S.P., Chiang, J.C. & Liu, Y.C. 2012, “The impact of transactive memory systems on IS development teams' coordination, communication, and performance”, International Journal of Project Management, vol. 30, pp.329-340.
• Kerzner, H. 1984, Project management: a system approach to planning, scheduling and controlling, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, USA. Kerzer, H. 2001, Project management: a systems approach to planning, scheduling and controlling, New York: John Wiley & Sons, USA.
• Kennedy, D.M., McComb, S.A. & Vozdolska, R.R. 2011, “An investigation of project complexity’s influence on team communication using Monte Carlo simulation”, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, vol. 28, pp.109–127.
• Lewis, J.P. 1993, How to build and manage a winning project tea, American Management Association, New York, USA.
• Luthans, F. 1998, “Successful vs. effective real managers”, The Academy of management, pp.127-132.
• McGrath, J.E. 1984, Group interaction and performance, Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall, USA.
• Nicholas, J.M. 1990, Management business and engineering project, NJ: Prentice-Hall, USA.
• Pinto, J.K. & Slevin, D.P. 1988, “Project success: definition and measurement techniques”, Project Management Journal, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 67-72.
• Raz, T., Aaron, J.S. & Dov, D. 2002, “Risk management, project success and technological uncertainty”, R&D Management, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 101-109.
• Turner, J.R. & Muller, R. 2003, “On the nature of the project as a temporary organization”, International Journal of Project Management, vol. 21, no. 7, pp.1-8.
• Wei, C.C. and Wang, F.C. M. 2003, “Efficient approaches of linearization in project compression”, Computers & Industrial Engineering, vol. 44, pp.695–706.