應用遊戲與模擬克服CCPM導入的兩大障礙與驗證CCPM的有效性

Abstract

自1997年起，限制理論(TOC)關鍵鏈專案管理(CCPM)方法已獲得了相當可觀的關注，已有數以百計導入CCPM成功的案例，在專案管理環境達成高度可靠的準時達交和縮短專案完成時間。但是，CCPM導入專案管理環境仍存在兩大障礙，第一個是實務界從事專案管理者表示：對於Goldratt宣稱專案管理方法只要做一些簡單的改變就能夠顯著改善專案準時達交和專案完成時間缺乏信心。第二個是學術界的一些學者聲稱：CCPM並非新知識且對於專案管理知識體系(PMBOK)無實質的貢獻。在本研究中，首先利用專案管理遊戲克服第一個障礙。接著，排除不良的人類行為後，比較研究CCPM和計劃評核術/要徑法(PERT/CPM)克服第二個障礙。結果顯示：(1) 專案的管理方法是造成專案準時達交和縮短專案完成時間的根本原因，且改變專案管理方法能夠顯著改善專案準時達交和專案完成時間。(2) 根據專案平均完成時間，CCPM未顯著優於PERT/CPM，但是根據專案規劃交期的可靠度，CCPM優於PERT/CPM，這是由於CCPM的規劃方法改變，因此比PERT/CPM規劃方法產生較合理且可靠的專案規劃。

Since 1997, the Critical Chain Project Management method (CCPM) has received considerable attention. Hundreds of successful CCPM cases have achieved highly reliable on-time delivery (OTD) with short project lead-time (PLT) in multi-project environments. However, two obstacles have remained, blocking the introduction of CCPM to project management (PM) society. The first has been addressed by PM practitioners, who have been less than confident that OTD and PLT can be significantly improved by simply changing the way to manage multi-projects. The second is from academia: some scholars have claimed that the ideas of CCPM are not new and are of no substantial contribution to PMBOK. In this study, we first used multi-project management games to overcome the first obstacle. A comparative study of CCPM and PERT/CPM planning methods, excluding bad human behaviors, was then conducted to overcome the second obstacle. Results show that: (1) the “mode of managing multi-projects” was the root cause, and changing the mode of managing multi-project could significantly improve OTD and PLT; (2) in terms of mean project time, CCPM is not significantly better than PERT/CPM. However, in terms of plan reliability, CCPM achieves higher than PERT and CPM. This is due to a CCPM logistical change that generates a more reasonable and reliable project plan than do the PERT/CPM methods.