Integrating Virtual Collaborative Environments into ...

8 downloads 425 Views 172KB Size Report
investing more time in content and simulation than software development. ... Collaborative Environment, Project Management, Simulation, Distributed Teams, ...
Integrating Virtual Collaborative Environments into Post-Graduate Project Management Education: A Case Study Mario Bourgault1, Sandrine Bauer1, Thomas Billet1, Alejandro Molano1, Brice Lecompte1, Denis Lagacé2 1

École Polytechnique, Campus de l’Université de Montréal, Canada ([email protected]). 2

Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, Canada ([email protected])

Abstract This case study examines the use of collaborative technology in training post-graduate students to conduct distributed projects. The experiment involved two Canadian engineering universities. The environment, including infrastructure and functioning, is described and results are discussed. Rather than develop a specific collaborative platform, we used existing tools (primarily Microsoft SharePoint) to develop customer-specific support materials. This enabled investing more time in content and simulation than software development. Participants expressed high overall satisfaction. Keywords Collaborative Environment, Project Management, Simulation, Distributed Teams, Post-Graduate Education, Microsoft SharePoint.

1

Preparing Engineers for Collaborative Project Management

The explosive development of information technologies continues to transform the way organizations design and execute projects. Expertise can now be assembled from the four corners of the world, as is the case for most multinational companies, which use these platforms to form a network of people who rarely meet face-to-face (Gupta et al., 2009; Dunning & Lundan, 2008). But despite these sophisticated tools, new work styles pose significant challenges—both organizational and technical—in the new work reality (Monalisa et al., 2008). These new functioning modes are here to stay, and professionals need to develop the competencies to manage distributed teams where diversity is the norm, not the exception. In this context, our team aimed to develop a learning system based on three key concerns in engineering education: the practice of project management, the use of information and communication technologies (ICT), and an understanding of distributed team work. Accordingly, we developed a simulation project intended to enrich the current knowledge in these areas.

2

Simulating Collaborative Project Settings

Simulation as a teaching tool has become increasingly widespread at universities, especially in professional disciplines such as management. In the case of project management, however, only a few initiatives have been launched in the past two decades. Yet simulation tools show clear potential in this area, given that training in project management must provide a balance between conceptualization and experimentation, so that students can develop relevant and applicable professional skills (McCreery, 2003). This is all the more true for project management, where hands-on experience is a significant asset for practitioners: “While analyzing a decision, a manager usually seeks in his memory for a similar situation in other projects or uses his

perception to capture current reality and mentally predict its future state according to available alternatives” (Dantas, Barros, & Werner, 2004). In academia, a project management simulation is a useful, even entertaining, way to bring theory to life. Imaginary scenarios are presented to participants, who must respond with action while drawing on their book knowledge. These simulations generally imply decisions—and ideally, actions—that relate to various aspects of projects such as timelines, costs, and risks (Nembhard, Yip & Shtub, 2009). Empirical studies confirm that students who participate in a project management simulation gain awareness of the realities of the profession and are better able to apply their knowledge (Martin, 2000; Zwikael & Gonen, 2007). Bourgault and Lagacé (2002) highlighted some additional educational benefits: when actual team situations are presented, simulations become a type of experiential learning, where students must exercise their relational and communicational skills. Furthermore, simulations encourage students to reflect on their actions in conditions that approach reality, so they can rapidly mature in their chosen field (Davidovitch, Prush & Shtub (2006). An in-depth review of the literature on the use of project management simulation (Table 1) reveals two highly distinct types of simulation: virtual reality simulations and simulation games. Authors Nembhard & Shtub (2009) Zwikael & Gonen (2007) Davidovitch, Parush, & Shtub (2006) Dantas, Barros, & Werner (2004) McCreery (2003) Bourgault & Lagace (2002) Martin (2000) Merrill & Collofello (1997) Deininger & Schneider (1994) Veshosky & Egbers (1991) Herbsman (1986)

Discipline System Engineering Technology Management Engineering (General) Software Engineering Management Engineering (General) Management Software Engineering Software Engineering Civil Engineering Civil Engineering

Table 1: Chronological list of simulation exercises as teaching tools in project management

The first group of studies refers to technology-based learning, in which the student plays the role of project manager, makes decisions, enters them into the simulator, and observes the impact. Participants act individually or in teams. However, because decisions must be made rapidly and via computer, little attention is paid to communication or relational issues, which pervade actual project conduct. Illustrations of this approach are presented in Dantas et al. (2004), Davidovitch et al. (2006), Martin (2000), and Nembhard et al. (2009). The second places more emphasis on the participants’ roles in a simulated organizational environment. Exercises range from day-long seminars to projects lasting several weeks. Although these simulations make substantial use of information processing tools, players engage in more or less complex relationships. They read documents, analyze them, make decisions, and transmit them. Sometimes computer calculations are used to simulate project progress (Deininger & Schneider, 1994; McCreery, 2003; Zwikael & Gonen, 2007; Bourgault & Lagacé, 2002). Although many pedagogical initiatives have been documented, simulations of distributed projects have been understudied, despite the growing trend toward distributed team work in the business world. Only a few studies have been published, notably by Olson-Buchanan et al. (2007), who underscored the gains to be had in terms of professional skills. They found the experience to be beneficial, not only because students enjoyed learning and were motivated to learn more, but also because students expressed intentions to consider or adopt communication technologies in the near future to support collaborative and distance work.

Based on these results, we sought to develop a simulation with similar objectives to those of Olson-Buchanan et al. (2007), but with an additional degree of realism by using real geographically distributed project teams.

3

The Case Study: PROSPECT

Our current infrastructure comprises the usual components found in any information system: hardware, software, processes, data, documentation, and staff. We called it PROSPECT, which stands in French for PRojet pédagogique visant le développement d’Outils de Simulation de Projets dans un Environnement Collaboratif et Technologique (Collaborative Technology Platform for Project Organization and Simulation – CTPPOS). Two Canadian universities located 150 km apart worked jointly on PROSPECT. The professors have extensive experience in collaboration (Bourgault & Lagacé, 2002) and command competent support teams (post-grads and teaching assistants). The case study includes 60 students from the two sites (35, 25). Although the sites are relatively homogenous (common language, engineering program, students enrolled in a project management course), we noted enough differences among students (ethnic origin, work experience, gender) to make the context both stimulating and challenging. The professors of the two subgroups (at each site) adjusted the students’ conditions to render them as homogonous as possible. For example, participation in the simulation exercise during a term was weighted equally in the overall course evaluation for all students regardless of their location. In addition, all students were given online technical support, and resource persons were on hand at each site to help the students. A kick-off meeting was held by videoconference at the beginning, with all participants attending, and a ceremony was held to reveal the results at the end of the term. The case presented in this article (fall 2009) was preceded by an initial experiment conducted in 2008 to test several features of the simulation with a small group in local mode (single site). Based on the results, the team proposed a broader experiment involving actual distributed sites. The infrastructures presented below, as well as the documentation and scenario, were developed by the authors from École Polytechnique de Montréal. Co-authors Bauer and Billet were involved in 2009 and co-authors Molano and Lecompte in the 2008 experiment.

3.1

Infrastructure

To ensure smooth functioning, we established a substantial infrastructure (Figure 1). Following Microsoft’s recommendation, we used SharePoint Server 2007 in a multi-server environment. We installed the database on one server and SharePoint on another and connected them to a local area network (LAN), with access to the university’s email and Active Directory user database. Participants could access the tools online. Students also had access to synchronous communication tools to accurately simulate enterprise life. We limited access to conventional telephones due to long-distance costs. Students were encouraged to use Web tools such as Skype and Live Messenger. Students also used their cell phones and bore the cost. These synchronous communications proved very useful for decision making and team discussions. In fact, these technologies are familiar ground for students, most of whom use them all day long for work and amusement. Therefore, they were more than willing to use these tools to communicate with each other.

Figure 1: PROSPECT Main Components

3.2

Work Processes and Documentation

A large part of the work in designing this kind of exercise involves phasing the activity into a regular university term, which in North America usually lasts about 15 weeks. The simulation must fit in with the academic calendar of each university, and it must have a format that professors can handle with ease. We prepared a framework to account for the academic and/or logistic constraints of both universities: •

Phasing with academic calendars and schedules



Weighting team work in students’ overall grades



Training all students in SharePoint at the beginning of the term

With these constraints in mind, we developed a scenario based on teaching requirements: •

Mixed teams, with students from both sites



A fixed nine-week calendar, including phases and milestones



Mandatory production of deliverables (documentation) with deadlines



Mandatory shared tasks involving weekly document exchanges in asynchronous mode and group decisions in synchronous mode



A scenario allowing the generation of multiple outcomes according to students’ decisions

3.3

Scenario elements

The basic simulation scenario (the “case”) is a telecommunications company that wants to develop a new device for an important customer that produces electronic products. Using this scenario, all teams had to follow a six-phase process and produce specific deliverables. All teams began with the same scenario, but projects unfolded differently, with different outcomes according to the students’ decisions as they tried to meet customer expectations (budgetschedule-performance) using various strategies.

• Situation: a fictive project involving a firm that intends to develop a new telecommunications device • Deliverables: weekly assignments, with key decisions and project activities (activity planning, choice of project employees, choice of technical components, risk management, cost-schedule-performance management) • Reports on team decisions and progress (random computer-generated events) •

Evaluation of all deliverables and incentive structures (bonuses) in terms of meeting customer requirements (simulated delivery dates, budgets, performance) Table 1: Scenario elements

Milestones were introduced for greater realism, and teams had to make decisions about potential events based on “hidden” information in the case (e.g., supplier with a poor record). Events might occur or not, according to a preset simulation. Participants were informed of team decisions and simulator-produced events and responded accordingly (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: Determination of results using teams’ decisions and simulated events

3.4

Evaluation and data collection

Students were assessed in two main parts. A large part of the evaluation (80%) centered on the quality of the teams’ deliverables at the completion of each phase. Students had to account for case data and make rational decisions in response to simulated events. The remaining part of the evaluation (20%) involved ranking the teams’ final performance. Rank was determined by project conduct, calculated by summing the accumulated points as the teams made deadlines, respected budgets, and met customers’ quality expectations. This balance between cooperation (intra-team) and competition (inter-team) was meant to sustain the students’ motivation throughout the 9-week simulation exercise. For analysis purposes, the simulation organizers invited the students to fill out brief questionnaires at specified times in order to draw pedagogical lessons. The results presented below were obtained in part from these data.

4

Key Results

The simulation reasonably resembled a real situation and produced some interesting results. By participating in a series of decisions, students could recreate the interplay that takes place in industrial projects, where multiple unforeseen events can occur. In a preliminary assessment, we attempted to measure the degree of students’ satisfaction with the simulation. Table 2 presents the results on the case in question along with certain aspects of the infrastructure. Students expressed overall satisfaction (most of answers being over 4, the midscale score). However, two items show mixed results: case realism and the usefulness of

feedback provided to the teams after each submission of deliverables. The students also gave positive feedback on the pedagogical benefits, as indicated in Table 3. Completely disagree 1 The case was stimulating The case was realistic Professors' expectations  were clear Documentation and  explanations were clear Feedback received  helped improve our work Team Surveys helped  improve our teamwork PROSPECT fits well into a  PM course

2

3

4

5

Completely agree 7

6

0% 13%

2% 7%

2% 8%

3% 16%

15% 23%

35% 16%

43% 16%

0%

2%

0%

2%

28%

38%

31%

2%

0%

7%

8%

10%

38%

36%

2%

11%

8%

23%

23%

13%

20%

2%

0%

15%

8%

18%

33%

23%

0%

5%

3%

7%

23%

30%

33%

Table 2: Students satisfaction (Likert scales – 1 to 7) To what extent did Propect helped you…

not at all 1

2

3

4

5

6

Very much 7

develop competencies for  working in a distributed team  setting

2%

7%

0%

10%

16%

34%

31%

better understand the various  issues involved when working in  a distributed team

2%

3%

5%

8%

13%

26%

44%

Table 3: Evaluation of PROSPECT by the participants (Likert scales – 1 to 7) Finally, we attempted to identify the main challenges as the teams performed the simulation exercise. These turned out to be various. Thus, when asked how they could improve project conduct, the teams mentioned: • • • • • • •

Tighter planning, and more upstream in the project Better task distribution and allocation; avoid isolated work, which causes integration problems Clearer operating rules to prevent unequal participation by group members Much more communication in work teams, especially at the start; more synchronous meetings Better management of synchronous meetings Better understanding of synchronous tools Better team leadership

While it is true that problems occur in most industrial projects, the academic environment may accentuate them, especially when certain participants show less interest than others. The points raised by the participants underscore the need to maintain continuous communication throughout the project. Finally, it appears that this type of simulation enlivens learning and improves retention. As one student states: “I found this project interesting, fascinating, motivating, and entertaining, despite some minor teamwork problems. I’ve always enjoyed strategic games like PROSPECT. This exercise gave me a good idea of what goes on in a real project. Also, it introduces all the

main management concepts and methods you need for project conduct. It’s really a very good education exercise.”

Based on the participants’ overwhelmingly positive feedback, we may conclude that this type of simulation constitutes a valuable pedagogical tool that merits development and distribution, despite the inherent challenges and effort. For example, as other authors have pointed out, simulation exercises require a hefty time investment compared to traditional academic assignments. Therefore, schools must create favorable conditions to support such initiatives and ensure that they are not just one-time phenomena. In concrete terms, we have to pay the price to advance from knowledge-based to competency-based learning. Moreover, this type of pedagogical tool could be highly useful for companies that wish to develop organizational skills in distributed project management. We recognise that it takes time and practice to acquire competencies, and simulations that use concrete situations can undoubtedly be used for ongoing training. In terms of technology, this article shows that commercially available (and sometimes free) tools can be perfectly adequate for the needs of project management training. In our case, we felt that it would be more efficient to use an existing platform instead of spending time on developing scenarios and instructions. Nevertheless, this simulation has certain limitations. As shown in Table 2, although we aimed to reproduce a real-life business situation, we only partly achieved this objective. Ideally, the case scenario should be improved, notably to allow the teams more flexibility in project organization and planning. Concerning the communication and relational aspects, it would be instructive to diversify the customers and consider similar experiences on a broader scale (multi-site, multicountry). References Bourgault, M., & Lagace, D. (2002). A seminar for real-time interactive simulation of engineering projects: An innovative use of video-conferencing and IT-based educational tools. Journal of Engineering Education, Vol 91, No 2, p. 177-183. Dantas, A. R., Barros, M. O., & Werner, C. (2004). simulation-based game for project management experiential learning. Sixteenth International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (SEKE'04), Alberta, Canada, p. 19–24. Davidovitch, L., Parush, A., & Shtub, A. (2006). Simulation-based Learning in Engineering Education: Performance and Transfer in Learning Project Management. Journal of Engineering Education, Vol 95, No 4, p. 289-299. Deininger, M., & Schneider, K. (1994). Teaching software project management by simulation — Experiences with a comprehensive model. In Software Engineering Education, p. 227-242. Dunning, J. H., & Lundan, S.M. (2008). Multinational Enterprises and the Global Economy (2nd Ed.). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Gupta, A., Mattarelli, E., Seshasai, S., & Broschak, J. (2009). Use of collaborative technologies and knowledge sharing in co-located and distributed teams: Towards the 24-h knowledge factory. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vol 18, No 3, p. 147-161. Herbsman, Z. (1986). Project management training using microcomputers. Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol 2, No 3, p. 165-176. Martin, A. (2000). A simulation engine for custom project management education. International Journal of Project Management, Vol 18, No 3, p. 201-213. McCreery, J. K. (2003). Assessing the value of a project management simulation training exercise. International Journal of Project Management, Vol 21, No 4, p. 233-242. Merrill, D., & Collofello, J. S. (1997). Improving software project management skills using a software project simulator. Frontiers in Education Conference, Proceedings. (Vol 3, p. 1361-1366). Monalisa, M., Daim, T., Mirani, F., Dash, P., Khamis, R., & Bhusari, V. (2008). Managing Global Design Teams. Research Technology Management, Vol 51, No 4, p. 48-60.

Nembhard, D., Yip, K., & Shtub, A. (2009). Comparing Competitive and Cooperative Strategies for Learning Project Management. Journal of Engineering Education, Vol 98, No 2, Olson-Buchanan, J. B., Rechner, P. L., Sanchez, R. J., & Schmidtke, J. M. (2007). Utilizing virtual teams in a management principles course. Education + Training, Vol 49, p. 408-423. Veshosky, D., & Egbers, J. H. (1991). Civil Engineering Project Management Game: Teaching with Simulation. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, Vol 117, No 3, p. 203-213. Zwikael, O., & Gonen, A. (2007). Project execution game (PEG): training towards managing unexpected events. Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol 31, No 6, p. 495-512.