Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 323 – 332 www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman
Temporal boundary objects in megaprojects: Mapping the system with the Integrated Master Schedule Artemis Chang ⁎, Caroline Hatcher, Jai Kim Queensland University of Technology, QUT Business School, 2 George Street Brisbane QLD 4000, Australia Received 11 April 2012; received in revised form 15 August 2012; accepted 21 August 2012
Abstract Recently, a stream of project management research has recognized the critical role of boundary objects in the organization of projects. In this paper, we investigate how one advanced scheduling tool, the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS), is used as a temporal boundary object at various stages of complex projects. The IMS is critical to megaprojects which typically span long periods of time and face a high degree of complexity and uncertainty. In this paper, we conceptualize projects of this type as complex adaptive systems (CAS). We report the findings of four case projects on how the IMS mapped interactions, interdependencies, constraints, and fractal patterns of these emerging projects, and how the process of IMS visualization enabled communication and negotiation of project realities. This paper highlights that this advanced timeline tool acts as a boundary object and elicits shared understanding of complex projects from their stakeholders. © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved. Keywords: Timeline; Boundary object; Complex adaptive system; Sensemaking
1. Introduction The importance of timelines, along with cost and quality, has been emphasized to facilitate successful project management (Adam, 1995; Moore, 1963; Williams, 1999; Yakura, 2002). However, little focus has been given to the role of timeline and scheduling tools in complex megaprojects, which typically involve multibillion dollar infrastructure projects or high end technology, and which are usually initiated by the public sector. These projects also usually involve a large number of public and private partner organizations over a long time (Turner, 1999; van Marrewijk et al., 2008). Additionally, megaprojects often result in time delays, cost overruns and failure to meet user requirements (Kwak and Smith, 2009). This is due to the large number of organizations involved and the number of parts, modules, and subunits that need to be integrated over a long period of time, before the end product of the project is visible. In megaprojects, it is difficult for members to develop a holistic/systematic project timeline ⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 7 3138 2522; fax: + 61 7 3138 1313. E-mail address:
[email protected] (A. Chang). 0263-7863/$36.00 © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.08.007
understanding of the entire project. This is exacerbated by conditions of uncertainty and ambiguity in megaprojects that are perceived differently by multiple stakeholders across various geographical locations. In this paper, we examine the role of advanced scheduling tools in megaprojects. Through a multiple case studies approach, we identify the critical role of Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) in shaping project boundaries and facilitating collective sensemaking across boundaries. In the following discussion, we present a theoretical argument and multiple case studies to demonstrate how the new generation of scheduling tools “can” and “should” be used as a powerful boundary object which enables the visualization and the mapping of a complex adaptive system (CAS). These discussions address our research question of: what is the role of advanced scheduling tools in megaprojects? 2. Boundary objects The concept of boundary objects has been discussed in various organizational and management studies as a device to facilitate communication and gain a common understanding across multiple stakeholders (Levina and Vaast, 2005; Ruuska
324
A. Chang et al. / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 323–332
and Teigland, 2009). According to Star and Griesemer (1989), the classic definition of boundary objects is: …plastic enough to adapt to local needs and constraints of the several parties employing them, yet robust enough to maintain a common identity across sites… They may be abstract or concrete. They have different meanings in different social worlds but their structure is common enough to more than one world to make them recognizable means of translation. The creation and management of boundary objects is a key in developing and maintaining coherence across intersecting social worlds (Star and Griesemer, 1989: 393). Star and Griesemer (1989) explain that objects require a common identity across diverse locations in order to be useful and meaningful to people. In this context, project management scholars support the critical role of boundary objects that enable and facilitate communication and action between different social actors (Alderman et al., 2005). For example, objects such as project contracts, plans, drawings, schedules, and instructions generate sensemaking effects in project negotiations (Koskinen and Mäkinen, 2009). These objects also support problem solving (Ruuska and Teigland, 2009), project integrations (Martinsuo and Ahola, 2010), and knowledge entrainment (Söderlund, 2010). Enberg et al. (2010) also illustrated how drawings and sketches as boundary objects were used to simplify complexity and make an effective solution for project members. 2.1. Timeline as a temporal boundary object Yakura (2002) argues that timelines (e.g. Gantt charts, see Fig. 1) embody the key elements of narrative – a beginning, a middle and an ending, and a focal point – and act as special boundary objects. Timelines make the abstract notion of time concrete through the process of visualization, and enable communication and negotiation of time perspectives (Yakura, 2002). The visual representation of timelines thus helps members
make sense of and create a common understanding of their projects (Henderson, 1999). 2.2. Timeline in megaprojects: Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) Timeline plays a particularly significant role as a boundary object in megaprojects which face a high degree of complexity and uncertainty. Scheduling is critical to manage the “time limited” nature of projects (Moore, 1963). From the traditional view, scheduling tools were designed to provide external, objective, and explicit aspects of project activities (Adam, 1995). The most common first-generation tools are Gantt charts and PERT. These tools assume that projects are steady and linear (Aritua et al., 2009; Cooke-Davies et al., 2007) and have a limited capacity to encapsulate multiple and interdependent aspects of structurally complex projects (Williams, 1999). Consequently, advanced scheduling approaches, such as critical path method (CPM), critical chain method (CCM), PROMPTII, PRINCE2, and IMS have been developed and are commonly used in practice. Leveraging information technology, these products are capable of planning comprehensive allocation and synchronization of multiple aspects of projects over the long term. The IMS is a new generation of scheduling tool designed to support the management of complex megaprojects. The IMS is defined as “a networked, multi-layered schedule containing all the detailed discrete work packages and planning packages (or lower level tasks or activities) necessary to support the events, accomplishments, and criteria of the Integrated Master Plan (IMP) of the project” (Department of Defense, 2005: 5). The IMS linked to an IMP is usually used in large developments for procurements and acquisition in government agencies, such as National Aeronautical and Space Administration (NASA) and Department of Defense projects, amongst others. In terms of software architecture, IMS incorporates work breakdown structure (WBS), statement of work (SOW), and an earned value management system (EVMS), and establishes relationships between events, accomplishments, criteria, and
Fig. 1. Traditional two dimensional timeline (Yakura, 2002: 962).
A. Chang et al. / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 323–332
tasks with a unique code for each activity (Defence Acquisition University, 2001; Department of Defense, 2005). This new generational scheduling tool outperforms the traditional scheduling tools (see Fig. 1) in mapping multi-level sub-systems (see Fig. 2) and articulating the boundary and constraints of the interdependent elements of task, people, and processes (see Fig. 3). We argue that the IMS provides a dynamic replica of complex projects, conceptualized as complex adaptive systems (CAS). 3. Megaprojects as complex adaptive systems Megaprojects are characterized by a large number of parts, modules, and subunits that need to be integrated over a long period of time, and the often ambiguous and often evolving long term project goals (Kwak and Smith, 2009). For that reason, it is helpful to conceptualize projects of this type as a complex adaptive system (CAS), or “open, evolutionary aggregate whose components (or agents) are dynamically interrelated and who are cooperatively bonded by common purposes or outlook” (Uhl-Bien et al., 2007: 302). Recent project management literature conceptualizes projects as CAS, drawing on theories from science and mathematics (Cooke-Davies et al., 2007). This emerging paradigm aims to explain the non-linear, emerging and unpredictable reality of
325
complex project behaviors and outcomes, as this system changes through variation and co-evolution among components or agents (Holland, 1995). While CAS is understood to have numerous and different properties and is studied from varying approaches (Palmberg, 2009), emergence is one critical dimension on which all agree to be significant in a CAS. Emergence involves two critical interactive and interdependent mechanisms: the reformulation of existing elements to produce outcomes that are qualitatively different from the original elements, and self‐ organization (Kauffman, 1995, pp. 23–28). However, three essential and often misrepresented aspects of the notion of emergence support this theorization (Goldstein, 2007). Firstly, emergence does not appear straight out of disorder but rather novel patterns that have a relationship to earlier patterns. Secondly, there are structural ways in which emergence is channeled—there is a “built-in bias of the rules that constructs the ensuing order, not the commonly argued supposedly free spontaneous self-organizing activity of the network” (Goldstein, 2007: 68). Thirdly, diverse sources of order already existing in complex systems are the “nascent systems” of order that are “transformed” during emergence (Goldstein, 2007: 70). These qualities of a CAS suggest that, rather than viewing complex environments negatively as only innately uncontrollable and chaotic, there are possibilities for orderly processing of data,
Fig. 2. Interactions–IMS combination view with network relationships (KIDASA Software, 2011).
326
A. Chang et al. / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 323–332
Fig. 3. Structure of IMP and IMS (Defence Acquisition University, 2001: 10).
solving problems, and creativity and innovation as a function of interaction, interdependence, and integration. Thus, there is a juxtaposition of both order and apparent chaotic change in these systems (Kauffman, 1995). It also suggests, as Prigogine (1989: 397) argued in “The philosophy of instability,” that “time” is “the essential variable.” In this context, the IMS, as an advanced scheduling tool, can contribute significantly to the “collective” management of the “emerging” system, by the continuous visualization of the evolving structures and processes, not only revealing the entire system from a helicopter view, but also providing hyper-links to sub-systems that can enable the understanding of interdependencies in detail. IMS can further act as a temporal boundary object as well as a network-organizing device (Henderson, 1999). We argue that the advanced scheduling system, using the IMS as an example, can act as a boundary object to visualize multi-level and poly-temporal complex projects and to create a shared understanding of the entire project across multiple stakeholders. Our emphasis is on the processes and outcomes enabled by the visual IMS as a boundary object, not the technical functionality of this scheduling tool. Therefore, we explore the role of IMS as a boundary object along two different trajectories in this paper: as the visual representation of complex projects and as a sense-making device for complex projects. 4. IMS as a temporal boundary object in megaprojects: Visual representation of complex projects The IMS demonstrates its technical strength of visualizing complex projects. According to the National Defense Industrial Association (2009: 4), IMS provides “a road map for how and when the project will deliver its products and/or capabilities,” as “a living plan that will evolve over time as a consequence of change.” The Office of the Secretary of Defense in the USA explains the positive effects of visualization of IMS to reduce
uncertainty in projects. The IMS provides the big picture in planning and implementation of detailed project activities and milestones defining daily activities (National Defense Industrial Association, 2009). Without this visualization, managers only guess at and react to unexpected events. The visual effects of the IMS structure help agents to make decisions when unplanned events emerge by engaging stakeholders and receiving and involving feedback loops. This visual power of IMS outperforms the traditional Gantt chart presentation (Fig. 1). As shown in Fig. 2, the IMS shows the skeleton of all the events, timelines, and groups, and their functional interrelationships at multiple levels. Fig. 3 outlines how the IMS visualizes the static interactions and interdependencies (e.g. tasks, resources), and then the conflicting constraints using a different view in the system. Taken together, the pictorial representation of the interdependencies and constraints articulates the essential interdependent elements operating in tension in projects when viewed as complex social systems (Cooke-Davies et al., 2007; Uhl-Bien et al., 2007). The IMS is able to capture the fractal nature of CAS, explained as “irregular shapes that repeat themselves in nature” (Cooke-Davies et al., 2007: 53), and helps to explore the formation of complex patterns. For this study, the notion of fractal behavior is of particular interest, as complex projects are usually comprised of many smaller interdependent projects all marching to the “same beat” (see Fig. 2 for the fractal patterns). The importance of emergence was outlined in the earlier discussion of CAS. This notion of transformation of the system but bounded by earlier patterns and rules and constraints specified in the system is core to understanding the evolution of complex projects over a long period of time. The IMS can provide an ideal platform for capturing historical patterns, outlining interdependencies, and specifying rules and constraints at the various higher levels and based on the current elements of “certainty” within the system. At the same time, IMS can allow flexibility for the
A. Chang et al. / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 323–332
uncertain elements of the system and for modification of the timeline and specification of sub-level schedules and interdependence as they emerge.
327
the next sections explain our chosen methods and case study findings. 6. Methods
5. IMS as a temporal boundary object: Sensemaking device for complex projects Drawing on these understandings, we suggest that the still image of the IMS as a boundary object provides the narrative logic of tasks, milestones, and start and finish times. It becomes a helpful device for sensemaking. Specifically, during the cycle of projects, timeline tools are often used to guide members through the uncertainty and complexity of the projects for collective sensemaking (Yakura, 2002). According to Gioia and Chittipeddi (1991: 442), sensemaking is “the meaning, construction, and reconstruction by the involved parties as they attempt to develop a meaningful framework to understand the nature of the intended strategic change.” Through sensemaking processes (Weick, 1995), meanings are offered, accepted, created, and negotiated through discursive and textual accounts (Gephart, 1993). In a larger-scale complex adaptive system, individual agents signal their commitment to one another by using artifacts, words, and actions (Boal and Schultz, 2007; Hazy, 2006) as part of this sensemaking process. Thus sensemaking is essential to successful project management (Alderman et al., 2005; Papadimitriou and Pellegrin, 2007; Ruuska and Teigland, 2009). In particular, complex projects involving diverse activities and actors particularly require sensemaking devices to ensure shared understanding of emerging projects across the various individual and group reflections of project reality (Alderman et al., 2005). The establishment of both visual and narrative qualities across the interconnecting temporal phases towards the end of the projects is a unique contribution of timelines (Yakura, 2002). Putting together the schedule at every level requires first an understanding and then articulation of the interaction and interdependence among different sub-units, and further facilitating of the shared understanding of the overall projects. At the same time, this IMS defines and negotiates the boundaries of the loosely or tightly coupled sub-systems through the project life. This enables sub-systems themselves to selforganize, as “a living plan,” without too much control and interference from elements outside the boundaries of the subsystems. Once a master schedule is produced at the highest level, it enables the agents responsible for the sub-systems to check for each other's understanding of the common goal and the “execution plan” to achieve this common goal with other agencies. Furthermore, the “signing off” of the overall IMP signifies a formal commitment of the sub‐agencies to this execution plan. Yakura (2002) observed that once a commitment is made to the timeline as an ideal schedule, the schedule can then be used for monitoring and negotiation. The IMS should and often is also used as a promotional tool for interactions and interdependencies when individual sub-systems intend to modify their overall commitment to the higher order systems, perhaps due to technical difficulty and resource insufficiency. To illustrate the argument,
We adopt a multiple case study methodology as the overarching strategy for this study (Eisenhardt, 1991; Yin, 2003). Data were collected from a public sector organization in Australia responsible for $4.8 billion in capital acquisitions projects. The organization managed about 200 major projects (over $20 million) and more than 150 minor projects (under $20 million) in 2009 to sustain national security. Due to the complex nature of the products and services to the nation, major projects were annually assessed and benchmarked over the typical lifecycle period of 12 years, in terms of schedule, cost, requirements, technical difficulties, commercial confidence, and operational support. We gained access to the eight projects with the highest complexity in terms of project significance, schedule complexity, technical difficulty, and budgets over $500 million. One example, Project A, operates over 13 years with a budget of $8000 million as a design phase of a long term project of over 40 years. The project operates under a strategic alliance structure collaborating multiple national and international companies with multi-layered divisions and teams across countries. The major data collection methods for this large study of project leadership included interviews, secondary sources, and non-participant observation. In 2009, we selected interviewees based on strata sampling and in discussion with the senior director of each project using the following criteria: background, level of project management experience, and decision-making levels. As a result, we interviewed 33 directors, managers, and technical staff across eight cases, and here present four projects that highlighted the unique roles of IMS. We investigated various aspects of project success (Hazy, 2006), being guided by Hazy's overall schema but with a particular focus on communication and time management in projects. This paper focuses on the criteria of process and time management: how to manage different milestones and tempos, contributing to the overall long-term project goals. For interview analysis, we used a qualitative software program “NVivo” (Bazeley, 2007). We first organized the data by interview questions acting as “initial priori” coding, and secondly conducted “open” coding to capture salient issues within an individual and a group. The role of schedules as visual objects and as a way to map the system and the schedule's role in meaning-making and negotiating time constraints of complex projects emerged in this process of coding. While validating meanings across the initial priori codes, open codes and relevant literatures as iterative processes, the visual effects of IMS emerged as a significant factor across the cases in shaping project boundaries and responses. We also collected data from archival records and other available data sources. The set of documents included annual reports, projects reports, performance audit reports, the Auditor-General's ANAO reports, and the project timeline and status. In particular, an IMS user manual allowed us to see how the IMS visualizes interactions and interdependencies of multi-layered evolving project activities over time. In addition, the researchers were invited to work sites and observed how various outputs of IMS
328
A. Chang et al. / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 323–332
were visualized in the offices and how the IMS was maintained by schedulers interacting with project members. This nonparticipant observation helped to validate our understanding of members' perceptions and project and organizational documents. Overall, the combined use of the three methods helped the authors to synthesize the multiple roles of the IMS in facilitating emerging dynamics of complex adaptive systems (projects).
7. Findings and discussions The case organizations adopted the IMS to systematically manage their complex projects. All four cases (A, B, C, and D) operate within complex project structures (e.g. matrix or alliance) in the defense industry, and are in one phase (5 to 15 years) of long term projects, some lasting over 40 years when sustainment is included. These projects operate within a budget between $931 million and $8000 million. Each project had oversight from the government and politicians as well as from senior leaders of industry partners who had considerable financial interest in the success of the project. Table 1 provides a brief summary of the four case projects. The IMS has been differently used to co-ordinate unique operations and diverse activities in each case. However, the analysis within and across the four cases revealed the overarching roles and outcomes of IMS as a boundary object: visualization (1) using as visual objects and (2) mapping systems; and sensemaking, (3) creating shared understanding and (4) facilitating negotiations of complex projects. Table 1 provides the summary of themes by each case and the following section discusses each theme.
7.1. IMS's use as a visual object We asked project leaders and members about their strategies and processes for managing project timelines. The answers we anticipated were the traditional roles of scheduling, allocation, and synchronization of tasks for project efficiency (Hassard, 1996). Surprisingly, a dominant emphasis across the four cases (A, B, C, and D) was not about efficient scheduling functions, but how they used the IMS as a visual object to shape project identities, communication, and boundaries. Project A managers enthusiastically explained that they put the schedule up and visible so that people actually see their projects: “A schedule of key milestones blew it to almost the size of a wall … and it was very visual. You'd walk around and you'd see the number.” One project manager expressed the visual presentation of IMS as “a logic of the living wall,” and members constantly walked around and saw the progress of project activities crossing the multiple periods of past, present, and future. They suggested that with members seeing the visual objects, subconsciously they know where their present position in a long-term project is. One manager explained that the IMS was particularly helpful in explaining to industry partners where they were at, as the partners could see schedules starting to appear and becoming concrete visuals over time. Project B acknowledged the visual role of IMS in keeping people to that schedule: “Well, it really is having a schedule and then keeping people to delivering to that schedule, and tracking progress.” However, two managers expressed their concerns about the technical complexity of using the IMS by themselves and explained that a full-time scheduler was required to keep their timelines up-to-date for formal reporting. Instead, the
Table 1 Summary of role of IMS as boundary object. Project
Code
A
B
C
D
Duration Budget Type
2005–2018 AU$8000 Million Detailed design
2006–2011 AU$3500 Million Acquisition
2002–2014 AU$931 Million Acquisition
2004–2007 AU$4310 Million Acquisition/logistic
Using as visual objects
Maintain a common project identity a Visualize fractal nature and emergence a Bringing all people to share a common goal a
Information
Findings Visualization
Tracking progress but too Visualizing evolving complex to use c projects in real time a b Mapping the systems Unmanageable big beast Interaction, interdependence, fractal nature, and emergence c Sensemaking Creating a shared More communication Visualization made the understanding required to use as project transparent a c sensemaking device Facilitating negotiations Providing a tangible indication Interfacing optimal Positive visual effects but of negotiating actions a schedules versus difficult to negotiate multiple realistic progresses a activities c IMS: Integrated Master Schedule. a Positive perceptions. b Negative perceptions. c Ideal perceptions or challenges.
Visualizing emerging projects a Interaction, interdependence, fractal nature, and emergence c Create a shared understanding to turn the project around a Bringing people together to foster emergent forces of the project a
A. Chang et al. / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 323–332
managers had to draw a simple picture on a white board and a spreadsheet to visualize and explain their complex project. Project C also mentioned that they used IMS to monitor project progress, but the particular emphasis was on the “real time” object of the IMS. Every project member had an icon on their desktop to access the IMS: “Everyone has read access… we've got it robust enough and working well.” Members were able to immediately “at hand to click” and see both their own schedules as well as an integrated schedule providing “absolute holistic view to the baselines.” The technology and network infrastructure of the organizations enabled members to see the real-time pathways all the time. Project D reaffirmed the importance of IMS as a visual object, as project members could gradually see the development of their evolving projects: “It took probably a year to come up with a final schedule which we're still using in terms of when are we going to deliver… what is the picture and people can see that as well.” This advanced tool became a living plan visualizing project emergence. This theme was validated when the researchers visited the project offices. For example, in project A, the master schedule was displayed on the project website, and on large TV screens at the entry of the project site. Furthermore, whole project timelines linking multiple subgroups were printed out and displayed in large wall size posters. Using IMS as a visual object allowed members to see the emerging holistic boundary of their projects at time.
329
On the other hand, Project C acknowledged the ideal roles of IMS in providing an overall picture as well as detailed components in multiple pages: “I'll be doing two things at once. Trying to get the new ones coming in over the top, and see what the differences are, and trying to get the baseline the same.” This characteristic demonstrates the capacity of IMS to concurrently provide both localized and integrated visualizations. Project managers can map their tasks, search project patterns, and redirect resources across projects and times while navigating emerging project pathways through the IMS. Project D also pointed out the concurrent visualization of the fractal nature of their projects within the whole through the IMS: “If you want to look down at the details, but you can broadly see what needs to be put in place for these various things.” Although managers did not clearly answer how effective the IMS was, the scheduler of the Project D emphasized that IMS visualized time, resources, and interdependencies, facilitating planning processes. The scheduler claimed her intermediary role to map the system and connect multiple stakeholders. These findings heighten the role of IMS as a temporal boundary object that clearly portrays interdependencies and the fractal nature of projects with their structural similarity, despite their differing task orientation, and with the commonality of time demands and resource constraints. Emergence was tracked through the timeline, although deviating patterns of late schedules or the technical difficulty of using the IMS became constraints and created potential pressure points in some cases. 7.3. Creating a shared understanding
7.2. IMS mapping the systems The second dominant theme was the role of IMS in mapping the systems, weaving the interactions and interdependencies of complex megaprojects at multiple levels. The four projects expressed positive and negative experiences on how IMS helped to map their project tasks, durations, logic, and critical paths. Project A strongly supported the system that allowed them to break their projects into “manageable” pieces in temporal phases/segments/tasks and then sum up to an “entire schedule.” One manager expressed that the IMS allowed: “[An] entire schedule to its very depth and look at all the indices, second order of indices which tell you the health about your progress.” The interdependency and fractal patterns generated across smaller projects clustered within the larger project or program were highlighted when interviewees described how the IMS enabled local managers and external contractors overseas to develop their own schedules and systematically integrate into a master schedule. The IMS provided a frame to see both the “top level” and the “depths” for on-going adjustments in such diverse environments. Project B, however, experienced challenges in pulling subgroups together, as non-schedule-specialist individuals were unable to maintain their own schedules with thousands of line items. One manager felt that: “The schedules grow to such a big beast that they become unmanageable.” The technical complexity thus limited managers to use the IMS as an inflexible boundary object.
The previous two themes demonstrate how the IMS can play out as a temporal boundary object to visualize and represent complex projects. When we analyzed the effects of visualization, managers frequently mentioned how the IMS contributed to creating a shared understanding of their projects. Formal reporting of the schedule and displays on desk tops and walking areas consciously and subconsciously encouraged members to “see them in the conversations.” These examples emphasize the role of IMS as a boundary object to provide sensemaking in emerging projects. Projects A explained how IMS contributed positively to making their project transparent to industry partners who are located in different countries: “We have a transparent system into their process. There is really only one schedule and that's the schedule which the alliance is running. It is about achieving the project management outcomes. In that sense we are sharing the same data all of the time.” Managers supported that the IMS was effective in allowing everybody to be on the “same page” and to understand “others' roles.” Project B, however, confessed that it was too difficult to reflect changing projects and manage different interpretations from multiple groups. According to one manager, because the IMS is “live” with multiple versions, it is simply not possible to create a shared understanding across multiple networks of people. Managers suggested that, instead of letting individuals interpret the schedule by themselves, more rigorous communication and engagement of people are required to create a shared
330
A. Chang et al. / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 323–332
understanding while updating the schedules: “It gets back to communicating with people and asking how long do you think you're going to take? Do you need more help? Are you going to finish on time? If you need more help, we can get it.” Project C most clearly supported the claim for IMS's role as a sensemaking device. Design of interdependencies and fractal or repeated patterns of arrangement, such as the required structural and formal patterns of managing smaller projects through traditional project management methodologies, supported a shared understanding of various sub-projects. One manager stated: “IMS brings together other divisions with the electronic systems division. It brings us together for the higher level to sort of provide support and direction,” Project C altered the IMS, once they understood its impact on all the others and they accepted the impact. Thus, the scheduling system made them share others' perspectives and created project coherence. Project D was a long standing project that was nominated as a “project of concern” by government due to schedule-delays combined with failure to achieve the technological innovations needed. The project director described: “This was about June last year we started doing this. My primary focus was to get a decent schedule put together by the project because we didn't have a decent schedule that really integrated everybody. So I organized that with input from a couple of guys here, but we started getting some early signs.” This comment indicates that the IMS became an integral strategy to recalibrate a shared understanding across the stakeholders for successful project delivery. As such, this theme suggests that the IMS allowed not just the project leaders to plan the projects, but members to understand how the whole project fitted together. By visualizing this complex space as a whole, the outcome of using IMS is that each member could make sense of the various priorities and interdependencies fabricating their project boundaries. 7.4. Facilitating negotiations Facilitating negotiations implies that the IMS (potentially) enabled them to negotiate the static schedules and emerging project realities. Four cases expressed their unique views. Project A, under an alliance structure, experienced the IMS as a negotiating tool providing a tangible indication of actions for multiple parties. IMS supported the systematic re-organization by pulling it apart, re-planning, and reconstituting it into the temporal timelines. Indeed, the IMS informally allowed project responsibilities to be negotiated among organizations and often become part of formal contractual arrangements binding them: “For example, x number of contracts put out for one of the deliverables, and the completion of the contract negotiations for the module manufacturers. That is not a milestone in the contract but that is something that is really visual and is a real indication that we've actually achieved progress.” Project B, although struggling to maintain the IMS, explained that they used the IMS to balance optimal (meeting ideal schedule) versus realistic (reflecting actual progress) projects, by identifying and highlighting contingency factors or lead times. In other words, the IMS was used to reach an agreement for the
different expectations of multiple stakeholders as textual agents: “We definitely make sure that things are on track and that people have the capacity to do the work that's been assigned to them. The other thing is also not cheating yourself by being too optimistic. Giving people realistic timeframes, we put contingency against time, money, and project float, because things aren't perfect.” Project stakeholders negotiate the conflicts between ideal and real expectations using the scheduling tool. Project C mentioned the positive visual effects of IMS at multiple project periods and levels. However, they were in the early stages of understanding the negotiating effects of IMS in their project. They further expressed that it is not easy to negotiate multiple activities due to the project size and multiple interpretations: “It's not always that simple because they may interpret their requirement by the contract differently to what we do, because of the specifications. Our contract perceived as a relatively straight forward project is 4,000 pages, 1,200 pages of specifications, and 6,500 individual requirements.” Project D, on the other hand, expressed that the IMS was helpful in negotiating different areas to develop a common schedule: “You need to get a person who understands the logistics from start to finish, and then an engineering person from start to finish, a finance person, and make sure that all those people have plans in place to plan that through.” The project leaders experienced: “It's an enabler. It helps you get where you want to get.” IMS facilitated collective sensemaking in this project, bringing logics and ideas together to overcome the stigma of “project of concern.” The effective use of IMS played a critical role in negotiating the emergent forces of the project to bring the project successfully back on track. This theme suggests that the IMS has been used to negotiate functional time, resources, and interdependencies, as well as to balance ideal expectations and emerging project realities. The IMS as a common language facilitated negotiations with stakeholders in a textual form. The outcome of the use of this primarily visual tool was to help project members create a common understanding and negotiate project boundaries among multiple stakeholders.
8. Conclusion This paper has drawn on timeline, boundary objects and complex adaptive system studies to explore the ways that a timeline tool guided members in their understanding of how it shaped their complex megaproject environments. The first contribution of our paper was to expand on the role of timelines in complex projects as temporal boundary objects (Star and Griesemer, 1989; Yakura, 2002). This analysis recognizes that the IMS is concrete but flexible enough to allow project members to make sense of their own and entire emerging projects and to create a shared reality. The study also contributes to the literature by investigating the role of the IMS in facilitating emergence of meaning-making among members and projects as complex adaptive systems. Our case studies provide practical examples of the visualization of projects and the sensemaking about emergent patterns of complex projects.
A. Chang et al. / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 323–332
The unique experiences of each project are summarized in Table 1, and from our discussions, we can conclude as below: • Project A positively experienced the IMS as boundary objects in the aspects of visualization and sensemaking of their complex projects. • Project B, regarded the IMS as an “unmanageable beast” and an inflexible boundary object to guide their projects, due to the technical and project complexity. • Project C, at an earlier stage of developing the schedule, used the IMS as a visual symbol to represent their project, but had limited experience in negotiating activities and people's perceptions. • Project D, previously assessed as a project of concern, actively utilized the IMS as a boundary object to revitalize a shared understanding of their project and commitments to project success. This paper claims that the effective use of the IMS can capture the shared goals of the system and sub-systems and bind them together in a tightly coupled way that one individual leader cannot. Second, leveraging advanced technology and the sophisticated visualization of interactions, interdependencies, and their understanding of the fractal patterns in the megaproject helped project members to capture and understand the evolving formation of complex projects as a CAS. Further, multiple interactions of various stakeholders interdependently working together are captured in this IMS as a visual outcome, which conversely guides processes to create a shared understanding and negotiation of project realities. However, results of our study also highlight that the technical complexity of the IMS sometimes hinders the capacity of IMS to be employed as a boundary object. When this occurs, the IMS is viewed as an administrative challenge rather than as a project enabler. This limiting tension predominantly occurred in one project that we studied. The majority of the projects indicated benefits from using the IMS as a boundary object to facilitate co-ordination and cohesion. As a consequence, a detailed and holistic visualization of the whole project with a far greater transparency was available in these complex emergent environments to project managers, team members and multiple stakeholders. This visualization is more holistic than any one “leader” agent could provide, and thus this advanced timeline tool acts as a powerful enabler of collective sensemaking. This paper has demonstrated that the IMS can contribute to disentangling the domains of complex adaptive systems, by facilitating understanding of the interactions and interdependencies of specific project groups. Beyond the traditional timeline, the IMS, while concrete and technically detailed, was nonetheless flexible enough to visualize, negotiate, and interpret project boundaries, as new technical, resource, and scheduling challenges arose. Acknowledgement The authors would like to acknowledge Department of Defense, Australia, for providing the financial support to carry out the research.
331
References Adam, B., 1995. Timewatch: The Social Analysis of Time. Polity Press, Cambridge, UK. Alderman, N., Ivory, C., McLoughlin, I., Vaughan, R., 2005. Sense-making as a process within complex service-led projects. International Journal of Project Management 23, 380–385. Aritua, B., Smith, N.J., Bower, D., 2009. Construction client multi-projects—a complex adaptive systems perspective. International Journal of Project Management 27, 72–79. Bazeley, P., 2007. Qualitative Data Analysis with NVivo. Sage, London. Boal, K.B., Schultz, P.L., 2007. Storytelling, time, and evolution: the role of strategic leadership in complex adaptive systems. The Leadership Quarterly 18, 411–428. Cooke-Davies, T., Cicmil, S., Crawford, L., Richardson, K., 2007. We're not in Kansas anymore, Toto: mapping the strange landscape of complexity theory, and its relationship to project management. Project Management Journal 38, 50–61. Defence Acquisition University, 2001. Scheduling Guide for Program Managers. Fort Belvoir, VA. Department of Defense, 2005. Integrated Master Plan and Integrated Master Schedule Preparation and User Guide. Department of Defense, Australia. Eisenhardt, K.M., 1991. Better stories and better constructs: the case for rigor and comparative logic. Academy of Management Review 16, 620–627. Enberg, C., Lindkvist, L., Tell, F., 2010. Knowledge integration at the edge of technology: on teamwork and complexity in new turbine development. International Journal of Project Management 28, 756–765. Gephart, R.P., 1993. The textual approach: risk and blame in disaster sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal 36, 1465–1514. Gioia, D.A., Chittipeddi, K., 1991. Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal 12, 433–448. Goldstein, J., 2007. A new model for emergence and its leadership implications. In: Hazy, J.K., Goldstein, J.A., Lichtenstein, B.B. (Eds.), Complex Systems Leadership Theory. ISCE Publishing, Mansfield, MA, pp. 61–92. Hassard, J., 1996. Images of time in work and organization. In: Clegg, S., Hardy, C., Nord, W.R. (Eds.), Handbook of Organization Studies. Sage, London, pp. 581–898. Hazy, J.K., 2006. Measuring leadership effectiveness in complex sociotechnical systems. Emergence: Complexity and Organization 8, 58–77. Henderson, K., 1999. On Line and on Paper: Visual Representations, Visual Culture, and Computer Graphics in Design Engineering. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Holland, J.H., 1995. Hidden Order: How Adaptation Builds Complexity. Perseus Books, Cambridge. Kauffman, S., 1995. At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Selforganization and Complexity. Penguin, London. KIDASA Software, 2011. From 30,000 tasks to a single presentation sheet— automatically? KIDASA software. http://www.kidasa.com/news/sept08/ 30000tasks_small.png. Koskinen, K.U., Mäkinen, S., 2009. Role of boundary objects in negotiations of project contracts. International Journal of Project Management 27, 31–38. Kwak, Y.H., Smith, B.M., 2009. Managing risks in mega defense acquisition projects: performance, policy, and opportunities. International Journal of Project Management 27, 812–820. Levina, N., Vaast, E., 2005. The emergence of boundary spanning competence in practice: implications for implementation and use of information systems. MIS Quarterly 29, 335–363. Martinsuo, M., Ahola, T., 2010. Supplier integration in complex delivery projects: comparison between different buyer–supplier relationships. International Journal of Project Management 28, 107–116. Moore, W.E., 1963. Man, Time and Society. John Wiley, New York. National Defense Industrial Association, 2009. Depicting Schedule Margin in Integrated Master Schedules. Schedule Working Group, Program Management Systems Committee. National Defense Industrial Association. Palmberg, K., 2009. Complex adaptive systems as metaphors for organizational management. The Learning Organization 16, 483–498. Papadimitriou, K., Pellegrin, C., 2007. Dynamics of a project through Intermediary Objects of Design (IODs): a sensemaking perspective. International Journal of Project Management 25, 437–445. Prigogine, I., 1989. The philosophy of instability. Futures 21, 396–400.
332
A. Chang et al. / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 323–332
Ruuska, I., Teigland, R., 2009. Ensuring project success through collective competence and creative conflict in public–private partnerships—a case study of Bygga Villa, a Swedish triple helix e-government initiative. International Journal of Project Management 27, 323–334. Söderlund, J., 2010. Knowledge entrainment and project management: the case of large-scale transformation projects. International Journal of Project Management 28, 130–141. Star, S.L., Griesemer, J.R., 1989. Institutional ecology, “Translations” and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science 19, 387–420. Turner, J., 1999. The Handbook of Project-based Management, 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, London.
Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., McKelvey, B., 2007. Complexity leadership theory: shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly 18, 298–318. van Marrewijk, A., Clegg, S.R., Pitsis, T.S., Veenswijk, M., 2008. Managing public-private megaprojects: paradoxes, complexity, and project design. International Journal of Project Management 26, 591–600. Weick, K.E., 1995. Sensemaking in Organizations. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Williams, T.M., 1999. The need for new paradigms for complex projects. International Journal of Project Management 17, 269–273. Yakura, E.K., 2002. Charting time: timelines as temporal boundary objects. Academy of Management Journal 45, 956–970. Yin, R.K., 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
