Archive for Juli 11th, 2008

Change program initiation: Defining and managing the program–organization boundary (Lehtonen & Martinsuo, 2008)

Freitag, Juli 11th, 2008

Program initiation boundaries

Lehtonen, Päivi; Martinsuo, Miia: Change program initiation – Defining and managing the program–organization boundary; in: International Journal of Project Managment, Vol. 26 (2008), pp. 21-29.

Lehtonen & Martinsuo analyse change programs from a social perspective. Therefore programs are characterised as complex temporary organisations in an uncertain, dynamic context. The authors study the boundaries of change programs and identify boundary spanning activities and actors. Their research results show the need of each program to run through several iterative cycles of integration with and isolation from the parent organization during the project initiation phase. Actors (i.e. people) on the project define and shape the boundary, while also representing and legitimising the program. In further interactions with the parent company these actors scout for information, negotiate, ensure continuity, and guard & isolate themselves. Such interaction happens on an inidivdual level rather than on a team level. The organisation’s middle managers and the project’s central managers are the key interaction partners.

A Roadmap for IT Project Implementation – Integrating Stakeholders and Change Management Issues (Legris & Collerette, 2006)

Freitag, Juli 11th, 2008

History of PM Theories

Legris, Paul; Collerette, Pierre: A Roadmap for IT Project Implementation – Integrating Stakeholders and Change Management Issues; in: Project Management Journal, Vol. 27 (2006), No. 5, pp. 64-75.

Legris & Collerette start with an overview of theories on IT implementations. Locating the roots of these discussion in technology adoption models rather than in project management. Furthermore they break down the typical IT implementation project in 5 phases – preliminary analysis, systems requirement, preparation, implementation, and consolidation. They outline key factors for each phase and offer scales on how to score each of these factors to assess the condition of the project.

Perspectives on Project Management (Kolltveit et al. 2007)

Freitag, Juli 11th, 2008

Perspectives on PM

Kolltveit, Bjørn Johs.; Karlsen, Jan Terje; Grønhaug, Kjell: Perspectives on Project Management; in: International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 25 (2007), No. 1, pp. 3-9.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.12.002

Kolltveit et al. analyse the perspective of research articles and books published between 1983-2004 in the International Journal of Project Management. In total they mark 2977 observations of one of their 6 identified perspectives (task, leadership, business, transaction, systems, stakeholder). They characterize the average book on project management to contain 21% of knowledge on tasks, 51% on leadership, 10% on business, 8% on transactions, 5% on stakeholders, and 5% on systems.

Furthermore Kolltveit et al. describe theories of each perspective and key issues/research topics for each perspective. Plus they show the distribution over time, which shows a slightly decreasing trend for the task and systems perspective, whereas business and leadership perspectives are growing.

The ethical dimension of project management (Helgadóttir, in press)

Freitag, Juli 11th, 2008

Ethics

Helgadóttir, Hildur: The ethical dimension of project management, in: International Journal of Project Management, Article in Press
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.11.002

Helgadóttir argues that project management needs perfection (=logical thinking), beauty (=creative thinking) and goodness (=ethical thinking). Then the author describes different ethical philosophies and how these philosophies manifest in teams and management decisions. First Helgadóttir describes the outcome oriented philosophies of virtue ethics, and utilitarianism. Secondly she details the process oriented philosophies of deontological ethics, natural rights theory, and social contract theory.

Development of the SMART(TM) Project Planning framework (Hartman 2004)

Freitag, Juli 11th, 2008

Smart Project

Hartman, Francis; Ashrafi, Rafi: Development of the SMARTTM Project Planning framework, in: International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22 (2004), pp. 499-510.

Hartman & Ashrafi present a new trademarked framework for Project Planning. The idea behind this framework is to ensure that the project is SMART. Strategically Managed, Aligned with corporate strategy as well as stakeholder needs, Regenerative [sustainable] for the project team, and Transitional, which stands for smooth execution of changes to the project.

What is new? Four tools are presented by the authors (1) the SMART Breakdown Structure (SBS), (2) the priority triangle, (3) key questions, and (4) RACI+.

The SBS is basically a new take on the work break down structure. On the top-level is the project mission which is then broken down into the key stakeholders‘ expectations on the first level of decomposition. The next levels of decompositions break the expectations down to tangible deliverables. Furthermore they add a parking lot and an explicit list of exclusions.
The priority triangle extends the ABC-priority to 6 permutation of pairs of 2 priorities, e.g., Time (1st) and Cost (2nd); or Quality (1st) and Time (2nd).
The 3 key questions are (1) What is the final deliverable?, (2) What is everyone this project praising for?, and (3) Who decides the first two questions?
Finally the RACI+ chart (derived from the classical RACI „Responsibility, Accountability, Consult, Inform“-Matrix) clarifies the roles of each letter, R=responsible, A=action (does the work), C=consults (=has input, needs to be asked), I=informs (=reviews the output) and adds a new letter S=sanction (=signs-off acceptance).

Applying Traits Theory of Leadership to Project Management (Gehring, 2007)

Freitag, Juli 11th, 2008

 Traits Theory + PM

Gehring, Dean R.: Applying Traits Theory of Leadership to Project Management; in: IEEE Engineering Management Review, Vol. 35 (2007), No. 3, pp. 109ff.
And also in: Project Managment Journal, Vol. 38 (2007), No. 1, pp. 44-54. 

I, personally, have mixed attitudes towards the whole Personality Traits Theory. While I still think there is some ground for the NEO-PI constructs and scale, I really do believe the whole Meyers-Briggs-Type-Indicator (MBTI) is total crap, especially using a magical sorting hat which uses binominal (E or I, S or N, T or F, J or P) values on dimensions, when the scale seems to be normally distributed. Furthermore there seems to be proof that the whole thing is situational. I am an eNFP by the way.

However Gehring outlines the typically looked for leadership competencies of project managers in a very nice structured way (see my graphical summary). The author further describes the personality traits usually found with specific MBTI types. He then matches competencies to MBTI types.
ENTJ, ENFJ, INTJ, ISTJ, and INFJ art the top 5 matches between competencies and personality types. Unfortunately the sample is rather small (53 respondents) and the article lacks any statistical information about the validity and quality of the results.