Archive for Oktober 3rd, 2008

Embedding projects in multiple contexts – a structuration perspective (Manning, 2008)

Freitag, Oktober 3rd, 2008

Embedding projects in multiple contexts – a structuration perspective (Manning, 2008)

Manning, Stephan: Embedding projects in multiple contexts – a structuration perspective; in: International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 26 (2008), No. 1, pp. 30-37.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.08.012

Manning argues that projects are embedded in multiple contexts at the same time. These context facilitate and constrain the project at the same time and dynamically he describes this as „projects partly evolve in idiosyncratic ways as temporary systems, embedding needs to be understood as a continuous process linking projects to their environments“ (p.30).

Manning bases his analysis on Structuration Theory. It’s premise is to analyse action and structure (to interdependent concepts) in practice. Structuration Theory is defined by three key concepts – (1) structure, (2) actors, and (3) reflexive monitoring.

Structure is the set of symbolic and normative rules found in organisations. Furthermore the structure is set by authoritative and allocative resources. Actors are defined as potentially powerful and knowledgeable agents, who apply rules and resources in interactions, thus impacting the flow of events. As such structure impacts actions, which in turn impacts the structure. Reflexive monitoring is exactly this feedback loop from action to structure.

Applying structuration theory to projects Manning builds the concept of the project as temporary organisation, which is characertised by its tasks (=specification), times (=constraints), and teams (=relations). The author furthermore notices a constant process of disembedding and re-embedding into different contexts.

Which contexts are there? Manning identfies three. (1) organisations which are the collecitve actors engagned in coordinating projects, (2) interorganisational networks which are relations of legally independent organisations, and (3) organisation fields which are areas of institutional life by organisations and their members. Projects are embedded in all three of these contexts at the same time.

Lastly, Manning describes two embedding and re-embedding activities. Enactment of social contexts takes place top-down, that is from organisation fields –> interorganisational networks –> organisations –> projects, whereas the reproduction of social contexts takes place bottowm up.

Posted in Context, Organisation, Organisational capabilities, Temporary organisation, Theory | 1 Comment »

Organisational control in programme teams – An empirical study in change programme context (Nieminen & Lehtonen, 2008)

Freitag, Oktober 3rd, 2008

 Organisational control in programme teams - An empirical study in change programme context

Nieminen, Anu; Lehtonen, Mikko: Organisational control in programme teams – An empirical study in change programme context; in: International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 26 (2008), No. 1, pp. 63-72.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.08.001

Nieminen & Lehtonen search for control mechanisms and modes in organisational change programmes. Therefore the authors investigated four cases of organisational change programmes with a significant share of IT in them. Overall they identified 23 control mechanisms, which are used complimentary rather than exclusively.

The identified control mechanisms fall into three basic categories – (1) Bureaucratic Control, (2) Clan Control, and (3) Self Control. For each of these Nieminen & Lehtonen describe the focus, basis, and mechanisms of control.

Bureaucratic Control focuses on performance, i.e., behaviour, and outcomes, i.e., results and actions. The basis of bureaucratic control are rules and surveillance. Mechanisms typically employed are boundary and diagnostic mechanisms.

Clan Control focusses on socialisation, i.e., values, attitudes, and beliefs. The basis of clan control are interactions, values, and norms. Mechanisms typically employed are belief mechanisms, interactive mechanisms, and team control.

Self Control focusses on self-regulation, i.e., own actions vs. perceived organisational goals. It is based on self-monitoring and typically useses autonomoy as control mechanism.

In their empirical study Nieminen & Lehtonen find that a broad mix of control mechanisms is found in any programme, though significant differences exist between programmes. Furthermore the level of self-control seems to be positively related to other control mechanisms. Lastely the authors show that the physical environment strongly impacts the control mechanisms.

In their managerial implications Nieminen & Lehtonen conclude, that although ease of implementation is lowest for bureaucratic control – environments with ambigous goals need mechanisms of clan- and self-control.

Posted in Control, IT Project, Multi-project management, Program Management | 3 Comments »

Perceptions of the impact of project sponsorship practices on project success (Bryde, 2008)

Freitag, Oktober 3rd, 2008

 Perceptions of the impact of project sponsorship practices on project success

Bryde, David: Perceptions of the impact of project sponsorship practices on project success; in: International Journal of Project Management, in press.

Bryde investigates in this article the question which impact on the project stakeholder practice has.
The impact on the project is simply measured as perceived performance score of the project. The different practices are operationalised in three factors (with items sorted according to their factor loading)

  • External focus
    • Responsible for defining benefits and requirements
    • Take delivery at completion
    • Establish strategy, set priorities
    • Define success criteria
    • Define project and objectives
    • Monitor benefits
  • Internal focus = supporting
    • Create an environment for projects to succeed
    • Make senior management commitment
    • Give training when necessary
  • Internal/external focus = championing
    • Cancel project if appropriate
    • Champion project, make resources available
    • Monitor business environment

Finally Bryde uses a stepwise regression to quantify the impact of each factor on the perceived project success score. Resulting in a two factor model where ‚External focus‘ (standardised β = 0.373) and ‚Internal focus‘ (standardised β = 0.268) impact the project success. Adjusted R2 is 0.326.

Unfortunately in this article the performance is just scored up although a multi-item measurement exists, factor analysis has not been employed. Furthermore the article does not detail the consistency of scale neither for the antecendents nor consequence (Cronbach’s Alpha) and does not test for heteroscedasticy or distribution. Thus this article falls short in advancing the development of a multi-item measurement of project success from a stakeholder point of view. 

Posted in Stakeholder Management | 1 Comment »

The effectiveness in managing a group of multiple projects: Factors of influence and measurement criteria (Patanakul & Milosevic, in press)

Freitag, Oktober 3rd, 2008

The effectiveness in managing a group of multiple projects: Factors of influence and measurement criteria (Patanakul & Milosevic, in press)Patanakul, Peerasit; Milosevic, Dragan: The effectiveness in managing a group of multiple projects: Factors of influence and measurement criteria; in: International Journal of Project Management, in press, corrected proof.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.03.001Update: This article has been published inInternational Journal of Project Management, Vol. 27 (2009), pp. 216–233. Multi-project management. I covered a similar topic yesterday looking at it from a Complexity Theory viewpoint. The authors argue that multi-project management is increasingly used in the industry mainly for reasons of better utilisation. [Having worked as a multi-project manager for marketing projects back in the old days, I don’t know if that is really true. My projects always culminated in a week with crazy workload, followed by dry spells, where I bored myself to death.]Patanakul & Milosevic analyse the critical success factors for managing multi-projects from a ‚bundle of projects‘-perspective, i.e., by interviewing a multi-project manager and his/her supervisor. Thus they build six case studies of organisations using multi-project-management. Accordingly the authors define multi-project as the middle state in the project continuum, where single projects are on one end, and programmes are on the other end of the scale.What do Patankul & Milosevic find? The antecedents of multi-project management effectiveness are

  • Organisational field
    • Project assignments
      • Projects‘ strategic importance
      • Required fit to managers‘ competencies
      • Organisational & personal limitations
    • Resource allocation
      • Sufficient resource allocation
      • Sustainable resource allocation
    • Organisational culture
      • Commitment
      • Communication
      • Teamwork
      • Rewards
  • Operational field
    • Project management processes
      • Individual processes
      • Inter-project processes
      • Interdependency management
    • Competencies of the multi-project manager
      • Competencies for leading individual projects
      • Competencies for coordinating between projects

Finally the authors identify the consequences of multi-project management effectiveness as

  • Organisation
    • Resource productivity
    • Organisational learning
  • Project
    • Time-to-Market
    • Customer satisfaction
  • Personal
    • Personal growth
    • Personal satisfaction

Posted in Case Study, Complexity, Critical Success Factors, Leadership, Multi-project management | No Comments »

Integrating diverse knowledge through boundary spanning processes – The case of multidisciplinary project teams (Ratcheva, in press)

Freitag, Oktober 3rd, 2008

Integrating diverse knowledge through boundary spanning processes – The case of multidisciplinary project teams (Ratcheva, in press)

Ratcheva, Violina: Integrating diverse knowledge through boundary spanning processes – The case of multidisciplinary project teams; in: International Journal of Project Management, in press, corrected proof.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.02.008

The author argues that diverse, multi-disciplinary teams have knowledge boundaries which make information sharing difficult. An issue even more difficult if the team is geographically separated.

Ratcheva conceptualises the diverse project team as being embedded in the macro environment and organisational environment. The team itself is characterised at its starting point by three factors – (1) interpersonal, interactions & relational capital, (2) knowledge diversity, and (3) establishing workpractice. These three factors influence each other. Starting with this diverse team context or setting the team goes on to integrate it’s knowledge which ultimately leads to a project outcome.

Which knowledge boundaries exist in such a project team? Ratcheva identifies three different knowledge domains and at the edge of these knowledge boundaries. First of all there is the project team, surrounded by it’s projectation boundary, outside this boundary lies the occupational knowledge. Which simply means that each project team member is rooted in a broader knowledge of his profession which goes beyond the boundaries of the current project.
Secondly, the team has contextual knowledge which is confined by the project knowledge boundary. Thirdly, the broader project relevant knowledge lies inside the project’s social boundary.

How does the concept look like in motion? Which boundary spanning activities does the team perform? Ratcheva describes a four step process which combines all knowledge related and boundary spanning activities.

  1. The project core team works on the project, solves problems and issues = understanding occupational knowledge, and realising and spanning the projectation boundary
  2. The team understands the context knowledge, e.g., customer needs, stakeholder requirements = realising and spanning the project knowledge boundary
  3. The team understands  it’s personal diversity, thus understanding which personal knowledge is project relevant knowledge = realising and spanning the project social boundary
  4. The team integrates all knowledge, a knowledge which then feeds back into the first step

Posted in Boundary, Complexity, Culture, Knowledge Management | No Comments »