happen, while we anticipated so well. Things, like power and ... Influencing starts with a thorough understanding of what's going on. Understanding of what's ...
Understanding Project Management by Louis H.M.J. Lousberg M.Sc., project manager, Lousberg Project Management and -Consult.
Abstract In understanding project management the technical/controllable still outweighs the social/influence able. In this paper it is suggested that the key to influence uncontrollable things such as power and politics is not to look at projects as getting results but as a process of interaction. Examples of this approach are given by case studies from England, Australia and the Netherlands. What these specific and context-dependent case studies have in common is that they choose project management practice as the basis of the research, depart from what project managers say about this practice and hence let through analysis theories emerge, distinguish between the instrumental/rational and social/personal, but study both and investigate how a shared reality among project members is constructed. Suggested is that this construction is the key to influence the uncontrollable. Therefore it is concluded that these case studies contribute to a body of knowledge of managing the uncontrollable; a contribution to understanding project management.
Introduction As reflective practitioners, many of us drive at home after a long day’s work, wondering why something happened, or didn’t happen, while we anticipated so well. Things, like power and politics, are often beyond our control. But we can influence them. Influencing starts with a thorough understanding of what’s going on. Understanding of what’s going on depends on the way we look at things. It’s important to realize that our dominant way of looking at things, originates from an instrumental/rational approach. It looks at a project as a product, service or result. This implies that as long as we look at “objective” and measurable things like time, cost and quality, we can control the project. But, is this accurate enough? No, it’s not. To really understand what’s going on we need to complete this approach with a social approach; an approach that looks at a project as a process, a process of interaction that’s, therefore, only limited controllable.
1. Looking at Project Management as we are trained to To describe the way in which we as project managers usually are trained to look at things, I will elaborate on the concepts of project, of management and project management as defined in PMI’s standard project managers guide: the Project Management Body of Knowledge -PM BoK ® (PMBoK® Guide 4th edition, Project Management Institute. 2008). I will do so by briefly summarizing a review of the Guide by Koskela et al, 2002 that hasn’t lost its actuality because the theoretical principles behind the PM BoK ® haven’t been changed since. According to Koskela et al the PM BoK ® Guide states that projects are composed of two kinds of processes: project management processes and product-oriented processes (which specify and create the project product). First I will concentrate on the project proper, product oriented processes, and then on management covering the processes of planning, execution and controlling.
1.1 Project The Project Management Framework of the PM BoK ® defines a project as “a temporary endeavor undertaken to create a unique product, service or result.” So by definition a project is about production. Production is in the Guide conceptualized as a transformation of inputs to outputs. The project as a whole has an input, a set of resources that are transformed to an output, a product, service or result. This total transformation can be hierarchically decomposed into smaller transformations like in project phases, each with its inputs and outputs. Exhibit 1 shows this decomposition for a building process.
© 2009, Louis H.M.J. Lousberg Originally published as a part of 2009 PMI Global Congress Proceedings – Amsterdam, Netherlands
1/7
Idea
Building
Buildin g
Idea
Phase:
Initiative
Definition
Design
Preparation
Realisation
Exhibit 1: Hierarchical decomposition of total transformation into smaller transformations
1.2 Management The PM BoK ® Guide divides project management processes into initiating, planning, execution and closing processes, where planning, execution and controlling are the core processes. A central idea is that these processes form a closed loop: the planning processes provide a plan, that’s is realized by the executing process, and variances from the baseline or requests for change lead to corrections in execution or changes in further plans as shown in Exhibit 1.
Planning processes
Changes
Controlling processes
Plans
Performance data
Executing processes
Correction Exhibit 2: The closed loop of managerial processes in project management according to the PM BoK ® Guide (adapted from Koskela et al, 2002)
1.3 Project Management The Project Management Framework of the PM BoK ® defines Project management as “the application of knowledge, skills, tools and techniques to project activities to meet project requirements.” As indicated above according to Koskela et al the classical project management is a special type of production/operations management. This project management seems to be based on three theories of management: management-as planning, the dispatching model and the thermostat model. The first is evident from the structure and emphasis of the PM BoK ® Guide. The second is apparent form the discussion of execution in © 2009, Louis H.M.J. Lousberg Originally published as a part of 2009 PMI Global Congress Proceedings – Amsterdam, Netherlands
2/7
that Guide. The third is very clearly embodied in the closed loop of planning, execution and controlling as depicted in exhibit 2. With action as a main subject of these three theories of management, one can summarize classical (project)management as management of action. Main purpose is making this action controllable.
2. Looking at Project Management in another way. To be able to look at things in another way it’s important that we use other concepts or other meanings of concepts than the above. There fore the concept of process management is introduced here, hence applied tot power and politics.
2.1 Process Management The use of the concept of process management requires in the realm of this article a precise definition, to distinguish it from the usual meaning in English spoken countries. Here it is explicitly meant as “interaction management” or “collaborative” management”, contrary to the concept of “management of action”. Process management is concerned with conducting processes within network organizations consisting of equal partners that have not yet common targets and that are only focused on making one step forward. It takes place in complex situations, in which logic ordering/regulation and predictable output are rare (Bekkering et al, 2004). Examples of such a situation are the initiative phase of a project, community meetings related to a city development project or community objections against the plan for a highway through the community-area. Regarding the latest De Bruijn et al wrote a very interesting book titled “Process management, about process management and decision making” that defines process management as designing the process (“process architecture”) to solve substantial and procedural dilemma’s (dilemmasharing”) and hence manage this process. Both are done in a network environments, where –by definition- there is no hierarchy, no simple command and control type of decision making (De Bruijn et al, 2004). Another author writes: Process managers are focused on the prevention of conflicts via regulation of the participation of parties involved. They structure therefore the decision process and offer space for negotiations on the agenda and procedures. Objective of the negotiations is to eliminate resistance and reach an agreement (Boonstra, 2005). Also in process management as defined above there are aspects of control, but they are more focused on influencing people and working together. Bekkering et al mention these aspects “theme, timing, tempo, access, theater, tone, toll, time spirit and coincidence” (Bekkering et al, 2004). Bekkering et al’s book consists of two parts: one non empirical description of managing interactive processes and one enumeration of skills to practice interactive management, originating from various theories. Process management is applicable for situations that can be described as complex, network-organized, interactive, ambiguous and uncertain.
2.2 Process Management versus Project Management Different approaches lead to different forms of management. Or rather, just as a problem can be described using different concepts, normative as problems are (De Leeuw, 2002), the solutions to this problem – that is, forms of management – can be described in different terms. It follows, then, that the form of management that is thought to be suitable will depend on the way in which a problem has been described (Wamelink, 2006). The dominant variable that is used to distinguish between different forms of steering is that of uncertainty/complexity (De Leeuw, 2002). Drawing on De Leeuw’s five forms of steering, in this paper, we identify three forms of managing projects: project management (as defined, for example, in PMBoK®), programme management and process management. These can be located on an increasing scale of complexity/uncertainty, stretching from ‘routine’ at one end, to ‘improvisation’ at the other; see Exhibit 3. Degree of Uncertainty Very low
Form of Steering Open loop
Form of Management Routine
Average
Feedback
Project management
Reasonable
Feed forward
Programme management
High (also ambiguity) Very high (also ambiguity)
Meta Intrinsic
Process management Improvisation
Examples Managing industrial fabrication Managing systems Managing policy Managing interaction Managing brainstorms
Exhibit 3: Different Forms of Project Management, Along an Axis of Increasing Complexity
© 2009, Louis H.M.J. Lousberg Originally published as a part of 2009 PMI Global Congress Proceedings – Amsterdam, Netherlands
3/7
In order to refine the analysis, it is necessary to further clarify the difference between project management and process management. In this paper, we follow the definition of process management as, managing complexity within people networks (Teisman, 2001). One application of this, for instance, might be an agreement on the rules that project participants will follow in order to reach a decision. An other definition of process management is that adopted by Bekkering et al.: management of the development of ideas (Bekkering et al., 2004). Again, this definition is not about content per se (as with the realisation of a preconceived idea, for example), but merely about the process of getting to an idea. In the literature, the concept of process management is presented in opposition to that of project management, and Exhibit 4 offers an example of this tendency. Project One activity undertaken at a time One goal Limited time Heterogeneous pattern of action Temporary organisation Uncertainty Production takes place outside of line management Violates well-known conventions Disturbs line organisations
Process Multiple activities Several goals Long time orientation Heterogeneous, ambiguous and dynamic Organisation of interaction Uncertainty and ambiguity Production takes place in arenas within organisation Seeks new conventions Generates dynamics; requires flexibility
Exhibit 4: Differences between Project- and Process Management (adapted from Teisman, 2001) While taking such an approach certainly clarifies the differences between the two, as suggested above, several studies have emphasised the differences between project/systems management and process/interaction management, and come out in favour of the latter. Literature thus suggests that even within one project, both approaches can be valuable, depending upon the issue at hand (Groote et al., 2002; Bekkering et al., 2004). As experienced project managers, the authors of this article fully agree with this point; as a project manager, one has to be able to shift quickly from taking a project approach to taking a process approach. So, different forms of management are suitable for different problems, questions and subjects; and all of these different forms of management can be appropriate within the context of a single project. Hence, we can conclude this section with the thesis that there is not one form of managing projects, but there are several.
2.3 Power and Politics A, as I understood, well known and indeed recommendable book that is also written around these concepts is a PMI book: Power and Politics in Project management. Under this title Pinto wrote “(-) political activities, not technical problems, are some of the most commonly cited causes for new project failure. It is ironic that while project management theorists have sought for years to find new and better methods to improve the discipline, power and political behavior has rarely been addressed.” (Pinto, 1998). Arguing that the positional or formal power of a project manager is problematic, Pinto suggests that a project manager should build his influence, or informal power, on a positive use of the phenomena that “expanding networks and building coalitions is one of the most common political behaviors seen in organizations” in- and outside the project team. Firstly, understanding the nature of power and politics becomes then a condition for influencing people; Pinto reveals on that. Secondly, the project manager has to practice detailed descriptions of negotiation skills and conflict management
3. Examples of looking at Project Management in another way But what it lacks, is a deep understanding of what’s going on. So, although here the technical doesn’t outweigh the social, this shortage should be compensated. Next, I’ll give you three examples of research that full fills this need for a deep understanding of what going on by looking at projects from a social science point of view. Instead of trying to deduct general applicable rules of conduct out of quantitative research, it focuses on the specific, the context dependent based on qualitative research.
3.1 Australia In their 2002 study, Governmentality matters: designing an alliance culture of inter-organisational collaboration for managing projects, Clegg et al. investigated how a project to design and build a sewage facility in Sydney Harbour was successfully completed, on time and within budget, prior to the start of the 2002 Olympic Games. The project commenced with an alliance contract that contained a minimal number of requirements. The project’s strategy, specifications and design had to be developed by means of interaction within the project team, and by fine-tuning the approach to the project environment; that is, by talking.
© 2009, Louis H.M.J. Lousberg Originally published as a part of 2009 PMI Global Congress Proceedings – Amsterdam, Netherlands
4/7
The key theme for Clegg et al.’s analysis became the project culture and its relationship to a set of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) of Schedule, Budget, Occupational Health and Safety, Community and Ecology. Extensive research was undertaken, based on written texts, artefacts such as banners, and the records of meetings (for instance, over 1000 pages of transcripts were analysed). This led to the finding that governmentality poses an alternative to policing, litigation and arbitration, especially in situations of multiple actors and interests, through the design of a more collective and coherent practical consciousness within which to make sense. This example clearly shows how the instrumental can play an important role in the management of a project. Furthermore, parallels can be drawn with Howell et al.’s aim to design a more collective and coherent practical consciousness within which to make sense, and to develop a shared background of obviousness and common concerns (Howell et al., 2004). Unlike software, however, the instrument is not invented and then implemented. Rather, it is invented in the process of talking, and thus emerges from the challenges that have to be met in the course of managing the project. This probably leads to far more effective solutions than mere software implementation, although the latter approach, of course, can also be useful.
3.2 England A second example is that of Cicmil’s study, An Inquiry into Project Managers and Skills (Cicmil, 2006c). In order to answer the question, what it might mean and take to be a high performer or a virtuoso project manager?, interviewees were asked to reflect in an open-ended way on such themes as key challenges, their own performance, their personal careers, and the role of training. Of particular interest is the fact that the authors described their research methodology as originating from a pragmatic epistemology, designed as a participative cooperative inquiry based on active interviewing, involving reflective practitioners and pragmatic researchers. Some of the insights into project management practice that emerged from this cooperative inquiry include, continuous renegotiation of the project’s direction and plans, experienced in a social context where conversations and power play an equally important role as documents and procedures; and understanding project management as a social and political action in context: evaluating the situation using judgment, intuition, previous experience and a holistic, multiperspective approach as well as logic and universal principles of project management to act and perform in the specific local context of the living present. These findings confirm the point made earlier in this article regarding the supposed coexistence of instrumental and social forms of project management. This example also suggests that the role of project managers as implementers can be a problematic one. Most importantly, however, it illustrates that taking practice as the basis for research can reveal a different vision of everyday project management from that more commonly provided in the project management research literature, and the literature is further enriched as a result.
3.3 The Netherlands A final example of research that focuses on the specific, context-dependent aspects of project management consists of part of one of the author’s doctoral research into conflicts in complex public-private spatial planning projects. This research examines how conflicts might be managed, to avoid them becoming dysfunctional. Part of the research consists of case studies, which were analysed to obtain insights into the evolution, and possibly the causes, of conflicts in specific contexts. The existing literature suggests that differences in perception play an important role in the emergence of conflicts. To confront this theory with practice, a method was chosen that analyses the actual production of meanings and concepts used by social actors in real settings (Suddaby, 2006). The purpose of the analysis was to make statements about how actors interpret reality, rather than obtaining scientific truths that are based on ‘reality.’ For this research, transcriptions were made of open-ended interviews, in which conflicts, dysfunctional conflicts and solutions were discussed. Next, theoretical concepts and relations between these concepts were interpreted but only if grounded in the raw data. The findings were as follows: - in the conflict case, the dominant factor in the escalation into a dysfunctional conflict seemed to be a mismatch between the images that the architect and the project developer had of one other; - in the non-conflict case, there seemed to be a relationship between preventing conflicts and understanding differences in areas such as quality, costs and revenues (in short, economic feasibility). These findings then provided the basis for a hypothesis on how to prevent dysfunctional conflicts. This third example thus illustrates that, far from being derived from a theory that had been used to guide data collection and analysis, concepts, and the relationships between them, emerge from data and the subsequent analysis of data (Suddaby, 2006). What these three examples of specific, context-dependent research have in common is that they:
© 2009, Louis H.M.J. Lousberg Originally published as a part of 2009 PMI Global Congress Proceedings – Amsterdam, Netherlands
5/7
• • • • •
make project management practice the basis of the research; use interpretative qualitative research methods; investigate the construction of a shared reality, and of how theory can be shaped by reality; distinguish between the instrumental/rational and social/personal, while studying both; and deliver deep insights in the practice of project management.
4. Conclusion Therefore it is concluded that the distorted balance between project management as managing the controllable and project management as managing the uncontrollable can be restored in favor of the latter by research that is focused on the specific, context-dependent practice and grounded in what practitioners say about this practice. In this way these case studies contribute to a body of knowledge of managing the uncontrollable; a contribution to understanding project management.
© 2009, Louis H.M.J. Lousberg Originally published as a part of 2009 PMI Global Congress Proceedings – Amsterdam, Netherlands
6/7
5. References Bekkering, T., Glas, H., Klaassen, D. & Walter, J. (2004). Management van processen. Utrecht: Het Spectrum. Boonstra, J. (2005) De dynamiek van verander- en leerprocessen binnen organisaties. Kritische beschouwingen en gezichtspunten. http://www.sioo.nl/upload/artikelen/18_artikel_document.pdf Cicmil, S., Williams, T., Thomas, J. & Hodgson, D. (2006a) Rethinking Project Management: Researching the actuality of projects. International Journal of Project management, 24: 675-686. Cicmil, S. & Hodgson, D. (2006b). New possibilities for Project Management Theory: A critical Engagement. Project Management Journal 37(3): 111-122. Cicmil, S. (2006c). Understanding Project Management Practice Through Interpretative and Critical Research Perspectives. Project Management Journal, 37(2): 27-37. Clegg, S., Pitsis, T., Rura-Polley, T. & Marosszeky, M. (2002) Governmentality matters: designing an alliance culture of interorganizational collaboration for managing projects. Sydney: School of Management, University of Technology. De Bruijn, J.A., Ten Heuvelhof, E.F., In ‘t Veld, R.J. (2004) Procesmanagement, Academic Service, Den Haag De Leeuw, A.C. (2002). Bedrijfskundig management – Primair proces, strategie en organisatie. Assen: Koninklijke Van Gorcum.. Groote, G. Hugenholtz-Sasse, C. & Slikker, P. (2002). Projecten Leiden. Utrecht: Het Spectrum. Howell, G., Macomber, H., Koskela, L. & Draper, J. (2004). Leadership and project management: time for a shift from Fayol to Flores. Copenhagen: IGLC-proceedings. Koskela, L. & Howell, G. (2002). The underlying theory of project management is obsolete. Pennsylvania: Project Management Institute. Project Management Institute. (2008) A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK®) (2008 ed.). Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute. Suddaby, R. (2006). From the editors: what grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4): 633-642. Teisman, G. (2001). Besluitvorming en ruimtelijk procesmanagement. Delft: Eburon. Wamelink, J. (2006). Inspireren, Integreren, Innoveren. Delft: inaugural address, Delft University of Technology.
© 2009, Louis H.M.J. Lousberg Originally published as a part of 2009 PMI Global Congress Proceedings – Amsterdam, Netherlands
7/7
