Archive for August 11th, 2008

Large-scale projects, self-organizing and meta-rules: towards new forms of management (Jolivet & Navarre, 1996)

Montag, August 11th, 2008

New Approach to Manage Large-Scale Projects

Jolivet, F.; Navarre, C.: Large-scale projects, self-organizing and meta-rules: towards new forms of management; in: International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 14 (1996), No. 5, pp. 265-271.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0263-7863(96)84509-1

This is one of the few articles dealing with the specifics of large-scale projects. Jolivet & Navarre argue that the traditional approach of pyramidal organisation, centralised control, standardisation of procedures, and reactive management are not suited to successfully execute a large-scale project.

Instead the authors recommend a new approach of autonomy, subsidiarity, and cellular division which is characterized by

  • Maximal individualisation
  • Differentiation of management styles and use of central meta-rules
  • Use of autonomous, self-organising teams
  • Central performance audits

They argue that large scale projects can regain speed if decision power is shifted to people on the ground and is not centrally bundled which creates a bottleneck around the central management team.  All  (sub)-projects in their case study are conducted along a specific and limited set of 12 principles which are all correlated with project success. In all other areas small scale teams have full decisional autonomy.

Posted in Complexity, Megaprojects, Program Management, Temporary organisation | 2 Comments »

Interpreting an ERP-implementation Project from a Stakeholder Perspective (Boonstra, 2006)

Montag, August 11th, 2008

Stakeholder Salience Theory an Types of Stakeholders

Boonstra, Albert: Interpreting an ERP-implementation project from a stakeholder perspective; in: International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24 (2006), No. 1, pp. 38-52.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.06.003

Boonstra analyses a case study from the stakeholders perspective using Stakeholder Salience Theory (Mitchell, Agle, Wood 1997). Stakeholder Salience Theory states that the prominence of a stakeholder (salience) is directly related to the cumulative attributes of power, legitimacy, and urgency.

Power (= exercise will against resistance) is explained with resource dependence theory, agency theory, and transaction cost theory. Resource dependence theory shows that managerial attentions is required if the project is depends on a critical resource owned by a stakeholder. Further managerial attention is required if opportunism can potentially occur in that relationship, as explained by agency and transaction cost theory.

Legitimacy (= compliance of activities and outputs with existing norms, beliefs, values is explained by population ecology and institutional theory. Population ecology states that projects not fulfilling stakeholders needs struggle to survive; whilst institutional theory observes that survival depends on legitimacy acquired from conformance or isomorphism. Thus legitimate stakeholders require managerial attention.

Urgency (= degree of need for immediate attention) is a general concept in several organisation theories but explicitly discussed in issue management and crisis management literature. Urgency has two distinctive attributes time sensitivity and criticality of the claim. Urgent stakeholders require managerial attention.

From Neville, Benjamin A.; Menguc, Bulent; Bell, Simon J.: Stakeholder Salience Reloaded – Operationalising Corporate Social Responsibility, in: ANZMAC 2003 Conference Proceedings, Adelaide 1-3, December 2003, pp. 1883-1889.

Based on these 3 attributes Boonstra identifies 8 types of stakeholders.
„1. Dormant stakeholders possess the power to impose their will on a firm but, by not having a legitimate relationship or an urgent claim, their power remains unused.
2. Discretionary stakeholders possess legitimacy, but have no power for influencing the firm and no urgent claims. There is no pressure to engage in a relationship with a stakeholder.
3. Demanding stakeholders exist where the sole stakeholder relationship attribute is urgency: those with urgent claims, but having neither legitimacy nor power.
4. Dominant stakeholders are both powerful and legitimate. Their influence in the relationship is assured, since by possessing power and legitimacy they form the dominant coalition.
5. Dependent stakeholders are characterised by a lack of power, but have urgent and legitimate claims. These stakeholders depend on others to carry out their will. Power in this relationship is not reciprocal and is advocated through the values of others.
6. Dangerous stakeholders possess urgency and power but not legitimacy and may be coercive or dangerous. The use of coercive power often accompanies illegitimate status.
7. Definitive stakeholders possess power legitimacy and urgency. Any stakeholder can become ‘definitive’ by acquiring the missing attributes.
8. Non-stakeholders possess none o f the attributes and, thus, do not have any type of relationship with the group, organisation or project.“ (Boonstra 2006, pp. 40-41).

Boonstra then identifies the different stakeholders on the project, when they were evolved, which events triggered their involvement, and which meaning they gave the ERP system. The author shows that different stakeholders have different meanings, attitudes, and views, which dynamically change over time and which are not always disclosed. [Similar to the concept of technological frames described in this article.] Furthermore Boonstra underlined the importance of power as a major attribute for stakeholder salience. He also showed that Dominant Stakeholders can become Dormant Stakeholders, which activates other stakeholders to fill in that power gap.
For future research they briefly discuss two possible directions (1) linking stakeholder analysis to success/failure of projects and (2) exploring the role of the project manager.

Posted in Stakeholder Management | 2 Comments »

Leadership Behaviours in Matrix Environments (Wellman, 2007)

Montag, August 11th, 2008

 Senior Leadership in Matrix Organisations

Wellman, Jerry: Leadership Behaviours in Matrix Environments; in: Journal of Project Management, Vol. 38 (2007), No. 2, pp. 62-74.

Wellman uses Grounded Theory to analyse his case study. Grounded theory is an „inductive method to understand the perspective of actors relevant practices“. Thus it combines the world of the structural researchers with the systems researcher’s world. Wellman applied a five step research process

  • Collecting (1) Interviews, and (2) Organisational Artefacts
  • Identifying (3) recurrent themes and concepts which are validated against empirical data
  • Follow-up (4) interviews to test conclusions
  • Construction of (5) meta-concepts and their relationships

Wellman investigates the senior management role in matrix organisations. He shows that Empowerment, Support, Decision-Making, Flexibility, and Communications are critical success factors for projects in matrix organisations. Moreover he identifies culture and competence as two basic requirements.

Posted in Grounded Theory, Research | 1 Comment »

Effective Project Sponsorship – An Evaluation of the Role of the Executive Sponsor in Complex Infrastructure Projects by Senior Managers (Helm & Remington, 2005)

Montag, August 11th, 2008

Success Factors for Project Sponsors

Helm, Jane; Remingtone, Kayne: Effective Project Sponsorship – An Evaluation of the Role of the Executive Sponsor in Complex Infrastructure Projects by Senior Managers; in: Journal of Project Management, Vol. 36 (2005), No. 3, pp. 51-61.

Helm & Remington used a Grounded Theory approach to explore the role of Project Sponsors in semi-structured in-depth interviews. They identified 9 success factors:

  1. Seniority
  2. Political knowledge & savvy
  3. Connect project and organisation
  4. Battle for the project
  5. Motivate team
  6. Partner with project team
  7. Communication skills
  8. Compatibility with project team
  9. Provide objectivity and challenge project

Posted in Actuality Research, Sponsor, Success Criteria | 1 Comment »

A Staged Framework for the Recovery and Rehabilitation of Troubled IS Development Projects (Aiyer et al. 2005)

Montag, August 11th, 2008

Project Recovery Framework

Aiyer, Jagu; Rajkumar, T.M.; Havelka, Douglas: A Staged Framework for the Recovery and Rehabilitation of Troubled IS Development Projects; in: Journal of Project Management, Vol. 36 (2005), No. 4, pp. 32-43.

In this paper Aiyer et al. propose a 4 step framework to lead ailing projects out of their misery and bring them back on track. The 4 phases are

  1. Recognition
  2. Immediate Recovery
  3. Sustained Recovery
  4. Maturity

The process of project recovery starts with recognition of the problem and that help is needed. The second step identifies symptoms and stops the bleeding. Before the third step analyses the issues in-depth, creates new project plans, WBSes, and seeks approval. The final step then gathers the lessons learned from the intervention and disseminates these into the organisation.

Posted in Project Recovery | No Comments »

We’re not in Kansas anymore, Toto – Mapping the Strange Landscape of Complexity Theory, and its Relationship to Project Management (Cooke-Davis et al. 2007)

Montag, August 11th, 2008

Complexity Theory and Project Management

Cooke-Davis, Terry; Cicmil, Svetlana; Crawford, Lynn; Richardson, Kurt: We’re not in Kansas anymore, Toto – Mapping the Strange Landscape of Complexity Theory, and its Relationship to Project Management; in: Journal of Project Management, Vol. 38 (2007), No. 2, pp. 50-61.

Cooke-Davis et al. describe the origins of Complexity Theory as it has emerged from the fields of Life Science, Physical Science, and Mathematics since the 1960s. The authors apply  a selection of interesting concepts first described by Complexity Theory onto Project Management. Among those are Non-Linearity, emergence of organisation, states of chaos vs. stability, stability & fractals, radical unpredictability, complex responsive processes.

What does this mean for project management? Firstly, project managers should be aware of patterns of communication and relating on the project and should engage themselves in these. Secondly project members need to learn to tolerate anxiety and to cope with not having control over the project. The authors recommend a goal driven, enabling organisation instead of a control focussed management.

Posted in Actuality Research, Complexity, Organisation, Project Strategy, Research | 4 Comments »

Projects and programmes as value creation processes: A new perspective and some practical implications (Winter & Szczepanek 2008) and Value-based Management (Töpfer 2000)

Montag, August 11th, 2008

Value Creation in Projects and Programmes

Winter, Mark; Szczepanek, Tony: Projects and programmes as value creation processes – A new perspective and some practical implications; in: International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 26 (2008), No. 1 (Special Issue on European Academy of Management (EURAM 2007) Conference), pp. 95-103.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.08.015

AND

Töpfer, Armin (Ed.): Das Management der Werttreiber; Frankfurt 2000.
Amazon Link

Winter & Szczepanek base their article on Normann’s notion of value creation as an overarching goal of the organisation which also emphasises the customer as co-creator, co-producer and co-designer of value. Therefore true customer focus can only be achieved if a project looks also at the customer’s customer and leave behind organisational boundaries. Based on this value creating processes, the authors introduce a two-level customer relationship. The first level is the product creation, the additional second level represents the strategic domain of value creation.

The implications for a project are fourfold. Projects need to set their strategic focus on value creation and the second-level relationships. Secondly, project definition should outline the broader value to be created and the context instead of a narrow product view. Thirdly, projects should be set-up as multi-disciplinary, composite projects. Lastly a focus on value creates different images of the project, which helps understanding and shows the true complex nature of projects.

Finally the authors conclude with linking strategy, programmes, and projects. They outline chains of value creation on the Group level, which are fed by similar chains on the level of the business unit, which are fed by chains of value creation on the project level. On each of these levels the authors show the first-level relationship (product focus) and the second-level relationship (value focus). Furthermore they develop an enriched version of the project management triangle outlining the the strategy implementation in terms of products build, created value, and resource impact for each of the levels.

To contrast these thinking the right picture depicts what I learned about value oriented management at university. Töpfer outlines the value creation process as a chain of

  • Shareholder Value
  • Market Value
  • Customer Value
  • People Value
  • Future Value
  • Company Value

This chain is analysed top-down and managed bottom-up. The tool to manage the chain is the Balanced Score Card (BSC). The BSC consists of 4 dimensions (1) potential for performance/market performance, (2) customer satisfaction/market penetration, (3) entrepreneurial employees/employee satisfaction, and (4) economics/financial results.

Posted in Project Strategy, Value | No Comments »

Directions for future research in project management: The main findings of a UK government-funded research network (Winter et al. 2006)

Montag, August 11th, 2008

Directions of future research in project management

Winter, Mark; Smith, Charles; Morris, Peter; Cicmil, Svetlana: Directions for future research in project management – The main findings of a UK government-funded research network; in: International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24 (2006), No. 8, pp. 638-649.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.08.009 

To start with Winter et al. give a short overview of the research history. In their conceptualisation of project management’s history research started as a hard systems model forked afterwards into two different foci (1) execution and (2) organisational design. The organisational design stream developed into research of ad hoc & temporary organisations. This stream forked into 4 different streams a) subsequently focussed on major projects and lately on a management of project’s framework, b) analysed strategic decisions, c) viewed projects as information processing entities, and d) researched critical management.

Winter et al. outline 3 distinctive directions for future research – Theory ABOUT, FOR, and IN practice. Theory about practice should focus on complexity theory. The theory for practice on social processes, value creation, and a broad concept of project management. The theory in practice should create practitioners who are reflective practitioners and not merely trained technicians.

Posted in Actuality Research, Literature Review, Program Management, Research, Theory | 1 Comment »

Predicting Risk of Failure in Large-Scale Information Technology Projects (Willcocks & Griffiths, 1994)

Montag, August 11th, 2008

Risk Managment Framework

Willcocks, Leslie; Griffiths, Catherine: Predicting Risk of Failure in Large-Scale Information Technology Projects; in: Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 47 (1994), No. 2, pp. 205-228.

Willcocks & Griffiths analyse risk management practice. They find that wrong tools are used, especially statistical and finance tools which create a false accuracy and are insufficient to set risks in the broader context they belong to. Thus risk management focuses on valuation of economical impacts instead of actively managing the risks themselves.

The authors analyse 6 well known ITC projects Singapore’s TradeNet (electronic data interchange (EDI) for all aspects of the flow of goods), UK’s Department of Social Security automation, India’s CRISP project (automate information collection and processing in India’s  Integrated Rural Development program), Videotext (and it’s historical predecessor Minitel in France, Prestel in UK, and BTX in Germany), London Stock Exchange’s Taurus (automate trading, paperless dealing and contracting of shares).

Willcocks & Griffiths present their framework how to predict risk of failure of a large scale IT project more accurately. They develop a 3 step risk management approach (1) history & context, (2) process, and (3) risk outcomes.

History includes previous successes/failures, relevant experience and organizational assets. It also includes internal context, which is defined by characteristics of the organisation (e.g. strategy, structure, reward systems, HR, management), changing stakeholder needs and objectives, employee relations context, and IT infrastructure and management. Furthermore the first step analyses the external context which includes level of government support, environmental pressures, newness/maturity of technology, maturity of consultants/suppliers, and the market demand.

The second step is the project itself as characterised by its processes and content. The risk associated with the project’s content are driven by size, complexity, definitional and technical uncertainty, and the number of units involved. The process risks are influenced by governance structures, project management and succession, management support, user commitment, project time span, team experience, and staffing stability.

Risk outcomes can be described by cost, time, and technical performance. Moreover they include stakeholder benefits, organisational/national impacts, user/market acceptance, and usage of the final ITC deliverable.

Posted in Risk Management | 1 Comment »

A memetic paradigm of project management (Whitty, 2005)

Montag, August 11th, 2008

Memetic approach to project management

Whitty, Stephen Jonathan: A memetic paradigm of project management; in: International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 23 (2005), No. 8, pp. 575-583.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.06.005

I am quite fascinated by Richard Dawkin’s ideas and among them the Meme (cultural analogy to Darwin’s genes) is quite an old and a bit controversial one. When I studied Knowledge Management at university a meme was an abstract unit of information which we tried to store meaningfully in some über-cool XML data bases and after a while we might have been able to even find it again, then we retrieved it, and gave it to someone knowledge-worker to think about and to put it in use thus creating knowledge. According to Memetics this process is equivalent to sex in the animal kingdom.

Whitty reflects on project management as a memeplex. He illustrates what that means for  project management in 6 areas (1) project management, (2) bodies of knowledge, (3) project managers/teams, (4) the profession, (5) knowledge creation, and (6) project organisation. In a memetic sense project management is absolutely self-serving and evolves for its own good without serving a higher purpose.
Secondly the project management meme (aka PMBOK) evolves to increase the maximum number of projects and is not a conscious expert design, thus it favours fuzzy definitions and positivist ideas over hard, falsifiable facts.
Thirdly project managers are just a meme created by memes of project management [sounds esoteric but holds some truth, it’s a little like Russell’s chicken] and not some consciously crafted tactics to implement a strategy.
Fourthly the profession of project management is not consciously constructed and skilfully designed but evolved mainly to spread project management memes.
Fifthly knowledge is not created by a social systems (think academia and practitioners) but knowledge processes = memes construct social systems which in turn spread new project management memes.
Lastly project organisations are not human constructs but creations to replicate behaviours of project management memes. [I wrote earlier about Structuration and that according to to this theory: „Repetitions of acts of individual agents reproduce the structure“ – I guess it is time for Occam’s razor.]

Whitty concludes with two recommendations for research practice (1) benchmark ideas and develop best practices, thus spreading project management memes more quickly, and (2) unify the bodies of knowledge letting only the fittest memes survive.

Posted in Research, Sensemaking, Theory | 1 Comment »

User diversity impact on project performance in an environment with organizational technology learning and management review processes (Wang et al. 2006)

Montag, August 11th, 2008

 User Diversity and Project Success

Wang, Eric T.G.; Wei, Hsiao-Lan; Jiang, James J. ; Klein, Gary: User diversity impact on project performance in an environment with organizational technology learning and management review processes; in: International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24 (2006), pp. 405-411.

Does user diversity improves the performance of an information system-development project? Wang et al. use management review as a base process to examine whether user diversity is significant to the success of a system either directly or with learning as
a mediator. The authors find that success depends on management review and learning, but show user diversity to be fully mediated by organizational technology learning. Thus the authors conclude that user diversity should be considered an environmental factor to promote learning, but it may not be important in the completion of any particular project.

Posted in Critical Success Factors, IT Project, Methodology | 1 Comment »

The impacts of charismatic leadership style on team cohesiveness and overall performance during ERP implementation (Wang et al. 2005)

Montag, August 11th, 2008

 Charismatic Leadership

Wang, Eric; Chou, Huey-Wen; Jiang, James: The impacts of charismatic leadership style on team cohesiveness and overall performance during ERP implementation; in: International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 23 (2005), No. 3, pp. 173-180.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.09.003

„That is so neo-behaviouristic of you!“ how many times have you heard this? Whilst it is true that a multitude of critical success factors were proven IT projects, leadership is typically among the No. 1s of those. In this article Wang, Chou & Jiang ask the question: „How do charismatic leader impact their teams and subsequently project success?“

Wang et al. identify a couple of directs of impact of charismatic leaders. Usually they enthusiast people, develop trust, build confidence, and build commitment. Thus they create a high team satisfaction. Moreover they fulfil their mentor role with empathy. Charismatic leaders impact each team member individually. Team members internalise the leader’s values and goals which leads to transcend the team’s self interest for a higher goal.

Wang et al. showed empirically in a sample of 106 Taiwanese companies that charismatic leadership positively, directly and in-directly influences team cohesiveness and project team performance.
Now all what is left to do is to become a charismatic leader.

Posted in Leadership | 2 Comments »

Back from Holidays! More posts coming soon this morning!

Montag, August 11th, 2008

Posted in Admin | 1 Comment »