Applying the SPP to a Project

The contribution of project management frameworks, including Specific Processes

for Projects (SPP) and understanding the Enlightened Planning (EP) approach, is
critical. SPP offers a reliable way to manage a project by giving a structured
approach to planning, executing, and monitoring projects (IDC, 2020). On the other
hand, abiding by the Enlightened Planning (EP) method allows project managers to
remain agile and responsive to changes to help the project adapt despite adverse
challenges to the project’s aim (Yang, 2021). Therefore, to identify and understand
the role of SPP, EP, and their impacts on the project management process, this
analysis has chosen the NASA Mars Rover project to show how project managers
can implement the SPP to spur the project’s success.

The NASA Mars Rover project is a complex plan to discover and explore the Martian
planet. Numerous strategies have been implemented, including using sophisticated
robots, multiple scientists, engineers, and even technicians to search for any sign of
life on Mars (NASA, 2020). It is currently at the execution stage, and the first robots,
including the latest rover, have already landed on the planet by 2021 (Amos, 2022).
The project intends to collect and test samples from Mars to find ways humans can
extend their reach into it and expand their settlements to Mars. Attaining these goals
raises a high degree of difficulty unless appropriate project management and
resource allocation strategies are in place to help it succeed. Through this lens, this
analysis proposes that implementing the SPP framework can help the NASA Mars
Rover project to effectively and efficiently meet its goals.

Vision Framework
SPP is fundamental in a project’s development, execution, and even the closing
section. The first area that can be implemented in a project is the initiation stage,
where a clear vision and the project’s objectives are presented. This helps to
develop a comprehensive plan for the project’s goals and identify ways to attain
them (IDC, 2020). SPP contributes in this stage by giving project managers a clear
framework to establish dreams and visions that will guide the project’s scope and
primary objectives. In this process, key considerations are met, including what the
project intends to achieve, essential resources available to ensure its success, and a
viable framework needed to stay alert of any challenges and risk mitigation
strategies.

In the NASA Mars Rover project, this stage of SPP was fundamental, assisting
project managers in developing a clear insight into what they wanted to attain. The
project aimed to explore Mars, identify any form of life, and inform scientists how
they could reach the planet for further exploration (Amos, 2022). Stating a clear
vision was fundamental and helped the project align all other objects with this
primary vision. SPP ensured that the project stayed on track and achieved its
objectives within the set timeframe and budget.

The SPP framework also insists on understanding and addressing all stakeholders’
perceptions and needs regarding the project while developing the vision. Various
people involved in the project can present diverse opinions on what should be done
and left out. Understanding everyone’s perspective, addressing their varied opinions,
and bringing them to a common understanding (Hidalgo, 2019). This prevents
potential deviation from the project’s primary goal and brings a sense of
collectiveness and collaboration when dealing with the project’s challenges.
Similarly, this provision applied to the NASA Mars Rover project, where various
stakeholders, including scientists, researchers, and project managers, presented
their unique viewpoints about the project’s aim.

Strategy Framework
The Strategy Framework is the second stage of the Specific Process for Projects
(SPP). It is a significant step that helps project managers develop a clear critical plan
that guides the project’s objectives. It aims to identify the project’s primary aim and
strategize critical operations and directions that every stakeholder must follow to
align with its primary objectives.

This step is essential for the NASA Mars Rover project as it intends to have a
strategic way of exploring Mars. The project relied upon its primary goals and a well-
defined plan to set the grounds for efficiency and appropriate management of the
critical resources developed to help the project succeed. For instance, the project
heavily depends on technological tools and human expertise. Proper strategies for
dealing with technical issues and adapting to crises are essential.

Effective implementation of the strategy framework requires a deep analysis of the

project’s scope, goals, resources, and stakeholders’ status. The Mars Rover Project
understood this aspect. When the managers set the project’s objectives, a clear plan
was introduced to send robotic rovers to the planet. Specific stakeholders were given
appropriate tasks to help the project get enough funding and equipment to attain its
goal.

Moreover, the plan included using sophisticated technologies that can transmit
information from the region back to scientists and researchers on Earth (NASA,
2020). Thus, the project has achieved a clear roadmap that sets the pace and
strategies for all stakeholders. The stage also helps the project to include a proper
resource allocation to ensure it does not fall short of the critical resources and
funding needed to attain its primary goal.

Execution Framework
With a clear vision and a potential framework to attain that goal, a project proceeds
to the execution stage, where its well-defined strategies are executed. The SPP
includes various considerations and operations that define this process. For
example, critical activities in this stage include resource allocation to support the
project’s objectives (Mishra, 2019). it also involves a proper and efficient scheduling
process involving key activities and the specific tie they can undertake (IDC, 2020).
Moreover, the execution process must include a reliable monitoring strategy to certify
the project’s alignment with its goals and correct any problem that might expose the
project to a severe downfall.

NASA’s Mars Rover project relies heavily on an effective execution plan to ensure it
stays within the intended goal and deals with associated issues. Even though it
involved a highly complex activity, the project was built on a potential framework that
ensures it utilizes the complex technological equipment and diverse team of experts
as expected. However, there were risks and changes worth considering. The journey
to the new planet is challenging and characterized by potential risks of damage to
the machines sent to explore it. These issues can limit the projects’ success and
enhance the costs, considering the high costs of building the robots.

However, understanding the need to maintain flexibility and agility, as identified in the
EP approach, helps the team to improvise sophisticated specifications and utilize
robust technological solutions to attain a successful journey across the space.
Moreover, EP theory emphasizes developing a well-coordinated strategy to mitigate
such risks (Yang, 2021; Yu et al., 2018). This forced the project team to identify
reliable and agile logistics and transport systems and adequately maintain the
machinery to ensure the exploration objects reach their destination and perform their
specific tasks.

Maintaining a proper execution process helps the project management team deliver
timely outcomes. It also helps them meet the desired result with the expected budget
plan. In the process, managers must learn and have critical skills and capabilities to
maneuver and overcome the potential challenges that might hinder the project’s
process and interfere with the general aim (Zaman et al., 2019). Effective
communication and collaboration skills matter most as they enhance. Throughout
the NASA Mars Rover project, managers had to incorporate various skills and
abilities to manage the team and help the technological tools survive adverse
conditions, including the extreme environments on the new planet (Hall, 2020). They
developed a strategic way to coordinate with one another and enhanced
collaboration to remain relevant to the desired aim.

Close-Out Framework
If the project succeeds in the execution plan, with all aspects of the primary
objectives accomplished on time within the scheduled budget, it proceeds to the
close-out step, the SPP framework’s final stage. Armenia et al. (2019) show that it
provides a chance to develop a critical insight into the project, analyze its
performance to pinpoint key strengths and weaknesses and make probable
recommendations for the plan. The management team driving the NASA Mars
Rover project must be keen on this last stage to understand its scope and
accomplishments clearly.
The project must meet all its intended objectives and document progress and
accomplishments. The close-out framework lays the ground where the projects’
plans, reports, budgets, and key objectives are viewed. They must be presented in a
well-organized and presentable document that can be interpreted to inform the
stakeholders of the project’s success and any other section that could have been
done better to find ways of correction or satisfaction to the stakeholders (Armenia et
al., 2019). All these steps will be necessary to ensure the MARS Rover project
satisfies scientists’ desire to understand what Mars holds regarding its potential to
support life. Key findings must be recorded to create room for further analysis and
exploration to uncover essential information needed to enhance the public’s
understanding of the new planet.

Effective communication, transparency, and a sense of responsibility must also be

shown in the last stage to develop confidence among the stakeholders regarding the
project results. Each stakeholder has unique desires whenever a project plan is
presented and executed. A sense of common purpose is developed and guided to
help everyone attain their desired goal without interfering with the primary objectives
(Bond-Barnard et al., 2018).

However, the result of the project must address every stakeholder’s issues and
desires. Every person involved in exploring Mars must get enough information about
its progress and accomplishments to satisfy their curiosity about the new potential
life in the adverse environment. The list of stakeholders in the Mars Rover project
can be long, including sponsors, scientists, and even the general public who want to
understand the nature of the solar system. Everyone must be informed and highlight
the findings.
Contribution to Project Success and
Limitations/Challenges
While the entire SPP process might look straightforward and attainable, it also
comes with potential challenges that can interfere with the project’s progress and
overall ability to attain the final aim. It does not fit all projects as each plan has unique
goals and a set of different resources, including leadership. For a highly volatile
project to change, the fixed framework of SPP might fail.

For instance, it can be challenging for project managers to maintain the high
adaptation and flexibility needed in projects combated by economic crises or
environmental conditions that keep alternating (Boonstra and Reezigt, 2023).
Managers must remain agile and resilient to the changes while adapting their
strategies to meet the new demands (Boonstra and Reezigt, 2023). At the same
time, developing and running the SPP can be challenging for leaders with limited
time management skills, resource allocation, and incorporation of visions (Chow et
al., 2021). These are the primary elements that drive the SPP process. An effective
plan is needed to identify SPP’s suitability for the project before proceeding with the
development process.

SPP has tremendous benefits if correctly implemented and targeted to drive the
project management process. It lays a systematic and well-structured framework that
gives project managers a sense of direction. Its primary strength is dividing the
project management process into different stages (Chow et al., 2021). This gives
managers a viable strategy to overcome complex tasks and pinpoint challenges as
they occur at each step (Chow et al., 2021). It has clear procedures and frameworks
to guide appropriate measures and techniques to attain primary objectives at every
step.

Consequently, abiding by the SPP frameworks presents a valuable approach project

managers must embrace to plan, execute, and achieve significant outcomes.
Moreover, SPP is essential to measure progress, identify pain points of the project,
and ensure it sticks to the planned time and budget. Using the SPP approach,
project managers can quickly identify potential risks, develop contingency plans, and
allocate resources accordingly (Chow et al., 2021). It helps provide a clear
understanding of the project goals, timelines, and expected outcomes, leading to
successful project delivery.

Comparing SPP and PMI PMBook Project

Risk Management
The Project Management Institute’s (PMI) Project Management Body of Knowledge
(PMBook) is among the most valued guides shaping the project management
process. They have been an essential framework for managers across different
sectors, providing detailed practices, procedures, guidelines, and standards required
by the PMI regarding the project management process (Lewis, 2018). Its scope and
ability to guide project managers is flexible and is designed to meet the changes and
potential associated risks. This process takes a holistic approach to identifying and
analyzing possible risks. Also, it emphasizes the need for robust and flexible
strategies to combat potential risks (Hillson and Simon, 2020).

Moreover, the PMBook project risk management process identifies and recommends
engagement with everyone associated with the project process to combine
resources and forces in challenging moments (Lewis, 2018). The PMI PMBook
project risk management process is critical for project managers to effectively
manage risks through its flexible and holistic approach, robust strategies, and
emphasis on stakeholder engagement.

Comparing SPP and PMI PMBook Approaches

with Project Risk Management
Both SPP and PMI PMBook Approaches have been fundamental in managing
project risks. They offer potential frameworks that can guide project managers to
analyze, detect, and respond to threats before they grow into more significant issues.
This allows the management process to be agile and remain active in dealing with
overreaching problems that limit the project’s progress.

In addition, SPP and PMI PMBook Approaches follow unique but closely related
criteria while dealing with risks within the project planning, execution, and conclusion
(Tavakolan and Mohammadi, 2017). They both target effective identification of the
risks before making hasty decisions. At the same time, they emphasize the need to
perform a deep analysis of the issues to develop a proper understanding of their
underlying consequences.

Consequently, developing a plan to mitigate or prevent risks from occurring lies in a

well-informed decision (Yang, 2021). Moreover, the two approaches to risk
management enhance communication and team collaboration. These factors are
fundamental in developing a comprehensive view of the issues and link numerous
strategies individuals suggest to attain the best outcome.

Moreover, the two methods follow different steps in analyzing project risks. The PMI
PMBook approach is well-targeted to deal with numerical data, focusing on
assessing the probability of specific risks. Moreover, the PMI PMBook approach
utilizes numerical information to estimate the potential impacts of risk occurrences on
the project’s management and attainment of the primary goal. In this light, it
emphasizes the quantitative analysis process. In contrast, SPP is notable for its
subjective approach to viewing the frequency of a risk occurrence and the
associated impacts on the project’s primary aim (Barron et al., n.d). Despite their
differences in risk assessment, they offer viable results to rely on when making
informed decisions about risk management techniques.

The two risk management frameworks offer different ways to respond to identified
risks. The PMI PMBook approach highlights the importance of creating potential
contingency approaches to prevent risk occurrences from limiting the project’s
success (Obondi, 2022). The guidelines emphasize that risk managers should
always be alert and ready to initiate well-structured approaches to respond to risk
occurrences. On the other hand, SPP criteria have been modified to work with
proactive techniques. Its primary focus is to identify risks, understand their scope,
and build mitigation strategies, which focus on leveraging risk impacts and working
to eliminate them.

Risk Efficiency and Project Risk Management

Project risk management takes many forms. The most common strategies are to
prevent, mitigate, accept, or transfer risks (Rybnicek et al., 2020). However, each
decision comes with potential benefits and disadvantages to choose from. This is
where the risk efficiency concept comes from. It involves balancing the potential
benefits the project will gain if it decides to prevent risks before they occur or wait for
them to emerge and fight to overcome them. This strategy has been critical to risk
managers as it helps them seek cost-effective approaches.
Both SPP and PMI PMBook approaches identify and embrace risk efficiency
approaches. In this regard, they help risk managers weigh the costs and potential
impacts of risks to go with the most suitable decisions regarding budgets and
associated risks.

In the PMI PMBook approach, managers are given enough information about the
concurrence and likelihood of the dangers to assist them in understanding their
nature and how they will impact the project’s goals (Babenko et al., 2019). Similarly,
SPP techniques enhance early diagnosis and identification to inform managers of
the most appropriate measures to pursue (Babenko et al., 2019). Moreover, the two
risk management techniques encourage managers to improve their proactive steps,
including monitoring, constant assessments, and updating the measurement tools to
stay updated on any issue.

Strengths and Weaknesses of SPP and PMI

PMBook Approaches
SPP and PMI PMBook approach to risk management has similar concepts.
However, their approach sets them apart, with SPP embracing more ways of
preventing risks before they emerge while PMI PMBook works to avoid the impact of
existing threats to the projects’ goals. They also possess unique strengths that help
risk managers choose from and pick one that suits them. SPP’s technique, which is
a proactive approach to risk assessment, is most lucrative as it allows risk managers
to deal with risks before their impacts are even felt. In addition, SPP follows more
structured steps, which gives individuals a clear path to succeed in risk management
as it follows stages (Frederico, 2021). This is the best approach for those who prefer
early detection and prevention of risks.
However, PMI PMBook is more flexible in terms of changes than SPP. It fits
numerous risk contexts. While SPP is flexible in modifying the structure, it is inflexible
in dealing with diverse situations that require adaptability and resiliency. In this case,
PMI PMBook is the best option for dealing with highly unpredictable risks (Masso et
al., 2022). Still, it can be more expensive and time-consuming than SPP. Any
chance a risk manager takes is feasible when the proper analysis is implemented to
identify the most suitable one.

Reference List
Amos, J. (2022) Perseverance: NASA Mars rover to lay down rocks for earth return,
BBC News. Web.

Armenia, S. et al. (2019) ‘Sustainable project management: a conceptualization-

oriented review and a framework proposal for future studies,’ Sustainability, 11(9), p.
2664. Web.

Barron, M. et al. (n.d) Framework for project management. Web.

Boonstra, A. and Reezigt, C. (2023) ‘A complexity Framework for Project

Management Strategies’, Project Management Journal, 0(0). Web.

Bond-Barnard, T.J., Fletcher, L. and Steyn, H. (2018) ‘Linking trust and collaboration
in project teams to project management success,’ International Journal of Managing
Projects in Business, 11(2), pp. 432–457. Web.

Chow, T.C. et al. (2021) ‘Impact of sustainable project management on project plan
and project success of the manufacturing firm: structural model assessment,’ PLOS
ONE, 16(11), pp. 1-16. Web.
Frederico, G.F. (2021) ‘Project management for supply chains 4.0: a conceptual
framework proposal based on PMBOK methodology’, Operations Management
Research, 14(3–4), pp. 434–450. Web.

Hall, L. (2020) 6 technologies NASA is advancing to send humans to Mars, NASA.

Web.

Hillson, D. and Simon, P., 2020. Practical project risk management: the ATOM
methodology. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Hidalgo, E.S. (2019) ‘Adapting the scrum framework for agile project management in
science: a case study of a distributed research initiative,’ Heliyon, 5(3). Web.

IDC (2020) Minimizing chaos and maximizing quality: managing the SPP/APR
process using a project management approach. Web.

Lewis, S. (2018) What is Project Management Body of Knowledge

(PMBOK)? Definition from TechTarget, [Link]. Web.

Masso, J. et al. (2022) ‘A common terminology for software risk management,’ ACM
Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 31(4), pp. 1–47. Web.

Mishra, A.K. (2019) ‘Implementation status of value management in project

management practice in Nepal’, International Journal of Management Studies,
VI(1(1)), p. 92. Web.

NASA (2020) Mars 2020 Perseverance rover. Web.

Obondi, K.C. (2022) ‘The utilization of project risk monitoring and control practices
and their relationship with project success in construction projects,’ Journal of Project
Management, 7(1), pp. 35–52. Web.

Rybnicek, R., Plakolm, J. and Baumgartner, L. (2020) ‘Risks inpublic–private

partnerships: a systematic literature review of risk factors, their impact and risk
mitigation strategies’, Public Performance & Management Review, 43(5), pp. 1174–
1208. Web.

Tavakolan, M. and Mohammadi, A. (2017) ‘Risk management workshop application:

a case study of Ahwaz urban railway project,’ International Journal of Construction
Management, 18(3), pp. 260–274. Web.

Yang, Q. (2021) ‘Understanding of an “enlightened planning” approach in project risk

management’, Journal of Management Science & Engineering Research, 4(1), pp.
25–29. Web.

Yu, M. et al. (2018) integrating Sustainability into construction engineering projects:

perspective of sustainable project planning, MDPI. Web.

Zaman, U. et al. (2019) ‘Understanding the soft side of software projects: an

empirical study on the interactive effects of social skills and political skills on
complexity – performance relationship’, International Journal of Project
Management, 37(3), pp. 444–460. Web.