=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=None
|storemode=property
|title=Computational Intelligence for Project Scope
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-710/paper12.pdf
|volume=Vol-710
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/maics/McQuighanH11
}}
==Computational Intelligence for Project Scope==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-710/paper12.pdf
Computational Intelligence for Project Scope
Joseph M. McQuighan, PMP and Robert J. Hammell II, PhD
Towson University
8000 York Road
Towson, Maryland 21252
nature of the inputs to status reports for the scope constraint
Abstract
to answer two questions:
Managing scope is a critical process in information
technology (IT) project management. Reporting the status • Can fuzzy systems offer a tool that can capture the status
of scope requires both an understanding of the status of of the scope of an individual activity in an IT project?
individual activities and the aggregation into an overall
status for the project. Unlike cost and schedule which have • Can the scope status for activities be aggregated into a
the objective measures of currency spent or days passed, meaningful project scope status?
scope is subjective. Understanding the status of scope as a
project moves forward is critical to success; however, many It is anticipated that from the first question it might be
times IT projects fail due to mismanagement of scope
possible to determine if there is a common or generally
constraints. Recent research has confirmed status reporting
and analysis as a major problem in IT projects. Other
accepted understanding amongst project managers as to
research has looked at how computational intelligence (CI) how to report status when the inputs are vague or imprecise
techniques might be applied to the domain of project for an activity. The Z-mouse tool proposed by Lotfi Zadeh,
management for cost and time constraints. This study looks which is an extension of Zadeh's work on fuzzy set theory
at scope, a third constraint of project management. Since (Zadeh 1973), is a leading edge data collection mechanism
scope has properties of imprecision and vagueness, fuzzy that will be used as the data collection tool in this study.
logic would be an appropriate tool from Computational
Intelligence. This study focuses on using the recently
proposed Z-mouse for the collection of status information, Project Status
and then using fuzzy logic for the reporting of project status Weill and Broadbent have stated that information
for the scope constraint.
technology (IT) is "very strongly project based" (Weill
1998). Understanding the status of a project is important to
project managers, upper management, and executive
sponsors of a project. There are many stakeholders outside
Introduction of a project's organizational structure also interested in the
status of a project (PMBOK Guide 2008). The overall
Project managers collect data on the performance of their project status many times is seen as an aggregation of the
projects in order to be able to report the status and to status of the three traditional project constraints: cost,
forecast future performance. The Standish Group recently schedule, and scope. Depending on the project, the fourth
surveyed 400 organizations and reported that only 32% of constraint of quality could also be present (PMBOK Guide
information technology projects were successful, with 2008). Further, the overall status of each specific
close to a quarter of the projects reported as failures constraint is an aggregation of the status of each activity
(Levinson 2009a). Articles in CIO magazine point out that status considering that constraint. For example, each
poor requirements and scope management contributes to activity is examined to judge how it is meeting the cost
these failures (Levinson 2009b, Levinson 2009c). Much constraint; the project status related to cost is an
has been written about how to manage scope, from amalgamation of all the individual activity cost-related
improving business cases by establishing clear objectives, statuses. The project status for schedule is similarly
to ensuring requirements specify an acceptance criteria, to determined by first considering each how each activity is
change management processes. The measuring of scope performing with respect to that constraint. Finally, the
status has largely been ignored because of the difficulty of overall project status is established by combining the
measuring requirements. This research looks at the fuzzy individual constraint statuses. Thus, for the entire project,
the constraints are dimensions that are evaluated
independently and then later aggregated.
The Problem With over 300,000 members, the Project Management
As mentioned, the overall project status should be Institute (PMI) is recognized worldwide as an authority on
determined by aggregating the individual activity statuses. project processes. Their Project Management Book of
Instead, it is often reported as the opinion of the project Knowledge (PMBOK) does not spell out the format of
manager, which is subjective. Recent postings on the status reports, nor does it tell project managers specifically
LinkedIn internet site for professional project managers how to write a status report. Instead the PMBOK identifies
requesting help on project status met with a wide variety of processes, defines inputs, tools and techniques, and the data
rapid responses indicating the high interest level of flows that tie the processes together (PMBOK 2008). The
practicing project management professionals. Since PMBOK, as stated in section 1.1, is an assembly of good
executive managers tend to focus on problem areas, this practices that has the consensus and general agreement of
translates to projects in trouble and as a result, there is a project management professionals. The PMBOK "is a
tendency to under report status. Snow and Keil guide rather than a methodology. One can use different
investigated variance between the true status of a software methodologies and tools to implement the framework"
project from the reported status and found that accuracy (PMBOK 2008). This gives practitioners the flexibility to
was a major problem. "The intangible nature of software choose techniques that work for their given situation.
makes it difficult to obtain accurate estimates of the The Project Management Institute's PMBOK identifies
proportion of work completed, which may promote the performance reporting process as part of their
misperceptions regarding project status" (Snow 2001). Monitoring and Controlling process group (PMBOK 2008).
Snow and Keil found that in addition to misperceptions The PMBOK lists three outputs from the performance
in the status of a software project, project managers might reporting process: 1) Performance reports, 2)
also censor the status reports of poorly performing Organizational process assets updates, and 3) change
projects. They cited an example of a project that lost $125 requests. The purpose of the reports is to act as feedback
million over 3 years, yet senior management did not have into the processes that "track, review, and regulate the
any insights into the problems. "The combined effects of progress and performance of the project; identify any areas
project manager misperceptions (errors) and bias in in which changes to the plan are required; and initiate the
reporting leads to what we call “distortion” in the project corresponding changes" (PMBOK 2008). To this extent,
status information received by senior executives" (Snow data is converted into actionable information guiding the
2001). Snow identified the need for better tools for project to completion. This process of reporting
understanding project status, and the necessity to automate performance is crucial to initiating corrective actions and
the reporting of status to avoid project manager bias and preventive actions, and becomes part of the organization's
reporting errors. With other research projects focused on lessons learned historical database.
schedule and cost constraints, this study investigates scope. When reporting the status of projects, Dow and Taylor
have found that project dashboards are often used by senior
Project Status Background managers (Dow 2008). Dashboards are a graphical
Projects by definition are unique, and "because of the summary of the status of a project, many having a drill
unique nature of projects, there may be uncertainties... The down capability. The purpose is to give a quick, high level
project team must be able to assess the situation and overview of a project to upper management whose role is
balance the demands in order to deliver a successful to prioritize, review, and make funding decisions (Benson
project" (PMBOK 2008). Assessments are the feedback 2004). Dow and Taylor state that two constraints of project
during the execution of a project so that the project can be management, cost and schedule, are evaluated
guided to a successful completion. As projects move independently and summarized. It is interesting to note
forward, project managers are constantly gathering data on that they make no mention of scope. They also found that
the status, converting that data into useful information to to assist with quick problem identification sometimes a
be reported, and then acting upon the information. Often stoplight report is produced where each area is assigned a
the data is vague, or needs interpretation. An example of color to represent the status of that constraint. Typically
vague data is that it is difficult to determine to what extent the stoplight colors of red, yellow, and green are used to
the scope is being met. To label project scope as 67.35% represent the status of each constraint (Dow 2008). These
met is recognized as impractical precision. The constraint statuses will be aggregated into a cumulative
imprecision in the data is the subject of this study, and status for the project (Barnes 2009). Green-Yellow-Red
rather than using traditional methods to attempt to quantify traffic light status reporting is widely used because of its
scope, computational intelligence offers new tools and simplicity, and the quickness with which people can
techniques for capturing vagueness. Computational identify if there is a problem that needs addressing. This
intelligence tools can "identify semantically ambiguous traffic light technique is in common use many projects, and
concepts and convert them to fuzzy sets" (Cox, 1999) especially popular in status reports to stakeholders who
which can then be resolved into solutions that can be might have little time or inclination to understand the
handled by project managers. project details. Performance reports are essential inputs
necessary to monitor and control a project (PMBOK Measuring the Constraints
2008), but the dashboards get the attention of the The cost and schedule constraints of project management
executives. have numerical quantities that can be measured. The
It would seem that numerical inputs into reports and numbers have an element of objectivity which can be used
dashboards should yield an objective status for reporting in forecasts. Econometric methods such as regression
purposes. The ideal ought to be that for a given activity, analysis and autoregressive moving averages, or time series
the fixed numerical data goes in and a Green, Yellow, or methods such as linear prediction, trend estimation, and
Red project status comes out. The next stage in the moving averages have been used by practitioners of project
process would be that the individual activities are then management (PMBOK 2008). Currencies are tracked and
mechanically aggregated into an overall project status. reported using time series methods such as earned value
The reality is that there are many factors that influence the (PMBOK 2008). Calendar dates and/or labor hours can be
decision to label a project status with a particular status tracked for the time constraint. Depending on the project,
value for a singular activity, and that the aggregation of quality might also be measurable and reportable.
those statuses for multiple activities of the critical Scope, however, is much more difficult to measure, and
constraints is open to interpretation as well. at the same time is the critical element from which the time
When the project status is not a clear green or red, and cost are derived. Richardson and Butler stated that
Barnes and Hammell found that "ambiguity is present in "the concept of project scope is a foundation idea. It
the scenario where the expert had to decide that the status establishes the base for much of the subsequent
of a project is Yellow" (Barnes 2009). Looking at the case management activities" (Richardson 2006). At a high level
of rating just one of the activities in a project, it is simple overview of the project management processes defined by
for status green. Most managers would look at a truly the PMI, scope is derived from the project charter and
green activity and agree that the status is okay, or green. requirements, the scope baseline then feeds into the Work
Beyond green status, it becomes questionable. Barnes has Breakdown Structure (WBS). The WBS is the input to
shown that yellow status can be misinterpreted or time management, which was an output of the scope
communicated as green. definition being decomposed into activities. "Activities
The problem is much worse when the project is in provide a basis for estimating, scheduling, executing, and
serious trouble. Snow and Keil found that IT project status monitoring and controlling the project work" (PMBOK
of red is frequently misreported (Snow 2002). Projects 2008).
that are failing need the most attention from the executive In a similar manner, scope and the WBS feed into cost
management team; yet, without the knowledge that the estimates and cost management. This means that if the
status is red, the proper level of actions are not taken to scope is wrong, the time and cost estimates will be wrong,
bring a red project into compliance which often leads to or if the scope changes then time and cost can be severely
financial disasters. The magnitude of project failures is impacted. Time and cost estimates are calculated by
alarming. For example, barely ten years ago The San activity, but the list of activities comes from the scope
Francisco Chronicle reported that the state of California definitions and WBS that were completed early in the life
wasted over $1 billion on failed computer automation cycle of a project (Gido 2009). This implies that scope and
projects (Lucas 1999). requirements errors early in a project can carry over into
The second stage in reporting status, aggregation of the constraints that are perceived to be more objective, such as
constraints into an overall project status, has been studied cost.
by a number of authors. But there are complexities that Schwalbe states that managing scope is especially
make the automatic summarization difficult. For example, difficulty on IT projects. Scope can be relatively undefined
a project that is ahead of schedule might also be at the beginning, can grow out of control due to creep, and
significantly over cost at that point in time. What is the suffer from an inability to verify (Schwalbe 2010).
true status of that project? Just looking at the raw data Textbooks on project management will point to cases such
might yield a green status on schedule, but a red status for as the bankruptcy of FoxMeyer Drug in 1996 due to an IT
cost. However, the costs might reflect that fact that the project that had scope problems (James 1997 and Scott
project is ahead of schedule, so it might be the case that the 1996). McDougall cites a $170 million project failure by
project will finish ahead of schedule, and ultimately within McDonalds Restaurants in 2001 due to scope problems
cost constraints. Ahead of schedule, and meeting cost (McDougall 2006).
constraints when completed would seem to mean the Weill and Broadbent have stated that projects are late
project is "green", in spite of a "red" cost. This implies sometimes due to specification changes, or new business
that making status a simple mechanical output of numeric needs that occur during the project (Weill 1998). This
inputs can produce status errors. Human intervention is event, called scope creep, impacts the other areas that
required to interpret the data into meaningful information. management tracks for status reporting. The criteria that
are more readily measured by objective criteria (time, cost,
and resources) are directly impacted by scope creep
(PMBOK 2008). The uncontrolled changes of scope between fuzzy logic and probability by asserting that with
creep add costs of which a customer might not approve, fuzzy logic “you have all the information you need. The
delay schedules, and reroute critical resources. situation itself makes either Yes or No inappropriate. …
The IT industry is full of examples of scope creep. A Fuzzy answers…handle the actual ambiguity in
Google search of the term "project scope creep" produced descriptions or presentations of reality" (McNeill 1994).
over 4 million hits. A quick review of just a fraction of To this McNeill adds three characteristics of fuzziness:
these web sites demonstrates a common assumption: that a (McNeill 1994)
project manager knows exactly and precisely the scope, Word based, not number based.
and that the problem is that the scope changes or grows. Example: "hot", not 85 degrees
This is a questionable assumption. Fleming and Nonlinear and changeable
Koppelman, major advocates of the deterministic Earned Analog (ambiguous), not digital (yes/no)
Value model, admit that "earned value accurately measures Zimmermann expanded upon Zadeh's description of
project performance, but must assume that scope definition fuzziness as that of possibility, with the idea of a possibility
is adequate" (Fleming 2010). Many sites are devoted to distribution. Zimmermann’s example is that a fuzzy set
advice about managing scope through a change control F~ = { (1,1), (2,1), (3,0.8) } has a possibility
process, a respected technique, but this assumes that the distribution such that 0.8 is the possibility that X is 3
scope is well defined, and that the changes are recognized. (Zimmermann 1996). The possibility distribution thus
In reporting project status the ascertaining and reporting of allows for something to be both “true” and “fairly false” at
scope status is critical, and yet lacks a clear and the same time. This concept is the basic question that will
measureable standard. Stakeholders and executives have be asked of the experienced project managers in this
difficulty making decisions based on vague, subjective, research: is it possible that the measurement of scope is
and imprecise inputs. To put it simply, scope is fuzzy. inherently fuzzy, and therefore does it make more sense to
Scope and the corresponding set of requirements are a use tools and techniques that can capture the fuzziness
collection of words describing an end product, and whether associated with scope status.
or not the deliverable meets the requirements can be open
to interpretation.
Application of CI to Project Status
Computational Intelligence Background
Some authors have suggested that in spite of objective and
Computational intelligence (CI), implemented in a variety measureable numbers in cost and time constraints, there
of soft computing techniques, has allowed the automation can be fuzziness in the interpretation of those numbers. Li,
of the handling of vague and imprecise data. Moselhi, and Alkas proposed a forecasting method for cost
Computational intelligence offers a revolutionary set of and schedule constraints using Fuzzy Logic to compensate
tools capable of responding to fuzzy, inaccurate inputs. for the variability found on construction projects. They
This research envisions that these tools and techniques can looked at four different, generalized methods to forecast
be effectively applied to project status assessment. This project status (Li 2006). The first were stochastic methods
study concentrates on Information Technology (IT) that assumed each unit of work has a mean and standard
projects, in particular the scope constraint, because of the deviation, but according to Li, et al, these methods are
inherent lack of a measure for scope. The IEEE weakened by variability in costs per reporting period. The
Computational Intelligence Society defines CI as a number second methods were deterministic, such as earned value.
of core technologies, among them fuzzy systems, neural The third method that they looked at was social judgment
networks, evolutionary programming, and genetic theory based, using human judgment in lieu of mathematic
algorithms (IEEE 2011). These technologies build methods. The last method was their proposed use of fuzzy
intelligent systems to help with complex problems in logic for project forecasting and status (Li 2008).
which the information and data are vague, approximate, Other researchers have applied computational
and uncertain. For this research computational intelligence intelligence tools to project management for schedule and
will focus on fuzzy logic as applied to project status. In time control. Jin-Hsien Wang and Jongyun Hao proposed a
order to put a reasonable boundary around the subject, Fuzzy Linguistic PERT (Program Evaluation & Review
only project scope status will be evaluated. Technique) to replace stochastic methods that use means
Lotfi Zadeh proposed the concept of fuzzy variables that and standard deviations. They assert that too much data
are linguistic in the 1960's. For project cost these may be needed to obtain the random variable distribution,
linguistic variables might be (costs = {over, on cost, so fuzzy methods are more applicable (Wand 2007).
under}) (Li 2006). Fuzzy systems can replicate human Wang and Hao expanded PERT/CPM (Critical Path
decision making by handling vague data, to the point of Method) by storing each activity duration as a fuzzy set.
coping with noisy and/or missing data (Yen 1999). Klakegg, et al, have already analyzed what should be
McNeill in his text Fuzzy Logic explained the difference measured in projects, and at the same time they
acknowledge that warning signs of problems are "often mostly yellow, and at the same time that same scope item
unclear and imprecise" (Klakegg 2010). They describe can be of status a little red.
what, but not how to measure the subjective constraints. This study uses a fuzzy data collection tool proposed by
While other researchers have proposed how fuzzy set Zadeh, colloquially referred to as the Z-mouse. This tool is
theory can be integrated into project management across a spray paint web gadget that implements Zadeh’s spray
the time and schedule constraints, this work focuses on the paint analogy. Jose Barranquero and Sergio Guadarrama
scope constraint. Additionally, we will use a CI tool to created the Z-mouse to gather fuzzy opinions, or
capture scope status directly from experts in a more perceptions as they call it, from users (Barranquero 2010).
realistic, human friendly form. Once the status is captured, In their work, they give users an English language word
it can then be aggregated into an overall scope status for a and ask the participant to rate that word on a scale using the
project. Without an objective criterion such as currency Z-mouse.
spent or elapsed time, scope is difficult to measure. Fuzzy This study builds upon their prototype by evaluating the
systems allow the capturing of this subjective data, and fitness of their Z-mouse concepts when applied to project
then the aggregation using recognized fuzzy set management. Project managers are asked to rate the scope
mathematics. for a WBS activity on a scale that is words, not numbers. It
is anticipated that the non-numeric scale will be quickly
recognized and easy to use by experienced project
Methodology for Collecting Status managers. Figure 1 illustrates the Z-mouse web gadget
using a non-numeric, linguistic scale.
This study proposes to use computational intelligence (CI)
tools, in particular alternative tools like fuzzy logic, to
understand the status of a project's scope. This use of CI is
in contrast to the more conventional bivalent logic, which
Zadeh described as working well with exact numbers,
intervals, and probabilities. Rather than the hard, crisp
nature of bivalent logic, these CI alternatives have been
sometimes labeled "soft computing."
Zadeh stated that "it is a common practice to ignore
imprecision, treating what is imprecise as if it were
Figure 1. Linguistic scale for project scope
precise" (Zadeh 2009). The computing power available in
the 21st century allows for the implementation of the
Barranquero and Guadarrama go on to state that the
concepts that Zadeh called computing with words (Zadeh
Z-mouse can be easily learned by non-expert end users
2009). Given the imprecise nature of project scope due to
(Barranquero 2010). This could lead to a design where the
the linguistic nature of requirements, it makes more sense
individuals doing the work of a WBS activity would input
to use fuzzy intervals and fuzzy sets to capture the essence
their opinions on the scope status, which would be passed
of the status of scope.
on to the project manager and stakeholders. The scope
In his acceptance speech when receiving the Ben
status would be seen as a measurement that is analogous to
Franklin award at Villanova University in 2009, Zadeh
cost and schedule measurements. Since errors in scope
provided an analogy for fuzzy logic:
lead to errors in cost and schedule, the awareness of scope
In bivalent logic, the writing/drawing instrument is a
problems should contribute to early corrective actions,
ballpoint pen. In fuzzy logic, the writing/drawing
increasing project success.
instrument is a spray pen—a miniature spray can —
In contrast to fuzzy systems, social scientists have used
with an adjustable, precisely specified spray pattern
psychometric scales extensively in survey research. In
(Zadeh 2009).
Likert scales the survey participants are asked to select one
Zadeh has stated that a valid application of fuzzy logic is
number from a variety of choices. Many times these
in the handling of imperfect information. At Villanova
choices are an ordered scale, forcing the user to select one
Zadeh went on to say that "imperfect information is
and only one value (Trochim 2006). The evaluator of a
defined as information which in one or more respects is
Likert scale survey can take advantage of the bipolar nature
imprecise, uncertain, vague, incomplete, unreliable,
of this scheme, and apply conventional statistical tests,
partially true or partially possible" (Zadeh 2009). This
such as variance from a mean. Likert and other systems
leads to the core concept that membership in a fuzzy set is
such as Thurstone scaling have strict rules.
a matter of degree. For project managers, when looking at
One drawback from using Likert is that it cannot handle
the status of a given line item's scope using fuzzy logic,
that people will perceive a given choice as falling into two
that status is allowed to be a matter of degree. In practical
categories simultaneously. Those models view this human
terms this means that the scope of an item can be of status
tendency as a paradox, or a violation of the rules. A fuzzy
system allows that project managers might perceive the It should be pointed out that these spray paint data points
status as mostly yellow, with some modest amount of red. are converted to numeric values, and then evaluated using
Having both statuses at the same time for one activity is an the strict mathematical rules of fuzzy sets.
acceptable possibility in fuzzy systems. Another drawback
to scaling systems is that a statistically valid number of Methodology for Aggregating Scope Status for
participants are required in order to validate the data. In an Entire Project
project management there might only be two or three
participants working on a WBS activity, a number not
The next step is to aggregate the individual scope statuses
amenable to conventional crisp probability.
for each activity into an overall status for a project. Since
This study gives participants a description of an activity
the origins are the fuzzy words (green-yellow-red), the
and asks them to evaluate that activity for the status of the
proposed aggregation method would be an implementation
scope. Figure 2 gives an example that is illustrative of the
of Zadeh's computing with words. Zimmermann offers
types of questions in this survey.
three common methods to aggregate the individual inputs:
COA (center of area), COS (center of sums), and MOM
Activity 1: Web Page Design (mean of maxima) (Zimmermann 1996). This study will
End users have requested changes to the web pages that use COS to aggregate the fuzzy sets into the crisp value
should be relatively simple to accomplish. However, these that will be reported at the overall status. Klir states that
end users are known to change their minds frequently. COS is the most common method to find a value that
Time Constraint: the project is on schedule represents the overall conclusion. The COS calculation is
based on recognized and accepted mathematics for fuzzy
Cost Constraint: this activity is within the budget
sets, which can be found in textbooks by authors such as
Scope Constraint: use the Z-mouse to input the status Klir (Klir 1997). The COS solution finds the geometric
centroid for the aggregated first moments, and then
translates the solution value into a status.
Conclusion
Professional project managers have objective data for the
time and cost constraints on their activities. With the
introduction of an input tool to capture the status of scope,
the measuring and reporting of subjective opinions of scope
Figure 2. Sample project activity status can be done. The next step would be that each and
every WBS activity would have a scope status that could be
Figure 3 is an example of a potential response using the Z- aggregated into an overall project scope status. Based on
mouse. The individual inputting the status would select the gathering of this scope data it is expected that this
one of the four shades of grey from the pallet, and then would become the third constraint in a fuzzy system such
paint the status bar where they think appropriate. If they as the one proposed by Li, Moselhi, and Alkas that only
want to indicate a lesser importance, then they would addresses cost and schedule. Since IT projects are unique
select a lighter shade of grey. Figure 3 would be an and, thus have vague and imprecise scope requirements, it
example of a project manager deciding that scope is believed that two questions will be answered in the
constraint was mostly yellow, yet leaning towards red. positive by this study: 1) fuzzy logic can provide a tool for
measuring scope of individual activities, and 2) the fuzzy
scope can be aggregated into a meaningful project status.
References
Barranquero, T. Guadarrama, S. 2010. IEEE World
Congress on Computational Intelligence July, 18-23, 2010
Figure 3. Project scope using the Z-mouse to spray paint Barcelona, Spain.
the status of an activity as "mostly" yellow
Barnes, A. Hammell, R. 2008 "Determining Information
Technology Project Status using Recognition-primed
Decision Making Enabled Collaborative Agents for
Simulating Teamwork (R-CAST)." Proceedings of
CONISAR 2008, p.2.
Benson, R. Bugnitz, T. Walton, W. 2004. From Business McDougall, P. "8 Expensive I.T. Blunders,"
Strategy to IT Action. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. InformationWeek October 16, 2006
p.119.
McNeill, F. Martin. Thro, E. 1994. Fuzzy Logic. Boston,
Cox, E. The Fuzzy Systems Handbook, Second Edition. MA: AP Professional. p. 6.
Chestnut Hill, MA: Academic Press. p.15.
Project Management Institute. 2008. A Guide to the Project
Fleming, Q. Koppelman, J. 2010. Earned value project Management body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide) , Fourth
management. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Edition. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management
Institute, Inc. p.139. Institute, Inc.
Dow, W. Taylor, B. 2008. Project Management Richardson, G. 2006. Readings in Information Technology
Communications Bible. Indianapolis, IN: Wiley Project Management. Boston, MA: Course Technology. p.
Publishing. 115
Gido, J. Clements, J. 2009. Successful Project Schwalbe, K. 2010. Information Technology Project
Management, 4th edition. Mason, OH: South-Western Management. Boston, MA: Course Technology. p.197.
Cengage Learning.
Scott, L. 1996. "Troubled FoxMeyer unit files Chapter 11."
http://www.google.com/#q=project+scope+creep&hl=en& Modern Healthcare, Vol. 26, Issue 36.
prmd=ivns&ei=7NQjTei5HYK78gbXuqCRDg&start=280
&sa=N&fp=7b989c6c17f79c85, found 4 Jan 2011. Snow, A. Keil, M. 2001. "The Challenge of Accurate
Software Project Status Reporting: A Two Stage Model
IEEE Computational Intelligence Society statement of Incorporating Status Errors and Reporting Bias."
scope: http://ieee-cis.org/about_cis/scope/ Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference
on System Sciences.
James, G. 1997. "Information Technology Fiascos."
Datamation vol:43 issue:11 p. 84. Snow, A. Keil, M. 2002. "A Framework for Assessing the
Reliability of Software Project Status Reports."
Klakegg, O. Williams, T. Walker, Andersen, B. D. Engineering Management Journal, June 2002. p. 21.
Magnussen, O. 2010. Early Warning Signs in Complex
Projects, Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Trochim, W. 2006. http://www.socialresearch-
Institute, Inc. p. 26-29. methods.net/kb/scallik.php.
Levinson, M. 2009a. CIO Magazine "Recession Causes Weill, P. Broadbent, M. 1998. Leveraging the New
Rising IT Project Failure Rates." Infrastructure. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School
http://www.cio.com/article/495306. Press. p.208
Levinson, M. 2009b. CIO Magazine "Common Project Yen, J. Langari, R. 1999. Fuzzy Logic: Intelligence,
Management Metrics Doom IT Departments to Failure." Control, and Information. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
http://www.cio.com/article/440721. Prentice Hall.
Levinson, M. 2009c. CIO Magazine "Project Management Zadeh, L.A. 1973. "Outline of a new approach to the
The 14 Most Common Mistakes IT Departments Make " analysis of complex systems and decision processes."
http://www.cio.com/article/438930. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 3,
pp.28-44.
Li, J. Moselhi, O. Alkas, S. 2006. "Forecasting Project
Status by Using Fuzzy Logic." Journal of construction Zimmermann, H.-J. 1996. Fuzzy Set Theory and Its
Engineering and Management, Vol. 132, No. 11, Applications, third edition. Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer
November 2006. p. 1193 Academic Publishers.
Lucas, G. 1999. The San Francisco Chronicle "Computer
Bumbling Costs State $1 Billion"
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/-
1999/02/18/MN86384.DTL