Project Failure and the Many and Varied Limitations of Project Management - Assignment Example

Critical Analysis of a Text Text: Sage, D, Dainty, A & Brookes, N 2013, "A critical argument in favor of theoretical pluralism: Project failure and the many and varied limitations of project management," International Journal of Project Management, p.1-12 1. What review question am I asking of this text? The research questions that guided the text include: How alternative empirical analysis of project failures proposed by different theoretical perspectives can help conceptualise the limits of project management? What is the political and social contextualisation of performance in project management? The objective of this analysis is to examine whether the research text answered the research questions in explaining how project failures can be overcome with better management. 2. What type of literature is this? The text is based on a research conducted into project failure and success. The research developed translations of project failure using four various theoretical approaches, namely structural Marxism, positivism, ANT and interpretivism. Each approach presents theoretical approach to project failure differently. While the authors do not assume that they can decide disproportionate epistemological, methodological and ontological perspectives, all the approaches used offer political insights into ways in which project failures generate critical concerns with the impacts and transformations of managerial power, interests and identities. The research goes beyond merely rehearsing the established dissimilarity between project management failure and project failure. 3. What sort of intellectual project for study is being undertaken? a) How clear is it which project the authors are undertaking? The authors are undertaking knowledge-for-understanding and knowledge-for-action project b) How is the project reflected in the authors’ mode of working? The authors used structured survey questions after coming up with a series of questions based on varied aspects of project failures and success. The rationale for this is to understand the practices that lead to organisational failures and how project management can be applied to overcome the failures. The aim of the paper is to contribute to knowledge on project management and practice. c) What value stance is adopted towards the practice or policy investigated? The authors have adopted the Factors/Success School to orient their analysis around the descriptive statistics on the factors and criteria for project success of failure. Using this stance, rather than examining how empirical analysis of project failure can present better project management theories, they inquire into how substitute empirical analysis, proposed by different theoretical perspectives, can help establish the limits of project management. d) How does the sort of project being undertaken affect the research questions addressed? The research questions suggested by the authors present the idea of theoretical approaches in project failures that the authors aim to examine. They also offer a foundation into the objective of the author. The questionnaires used present limits on the questions to be addressed. This is consistent with commentaries from other researchers who have suggested that this type of research may only present restricted understanding of the project management failures, successes and practice. While this empirical study aims to add knowledge to the approaches that can explain project management activities, the survey-based deductive nature of this research to a small extent aims to promote an understanding on how project managers fail in their practice. Other interventions such as grounded research methods and ethnography integrate the deductive attribute of survey-based research with inductive approach in theory development to promote an understanding into the project management practice. e) How does the sort of project being undertaken affect the place of theory? The authors use a practical theory to offer an insight into how project management tools and practices are linked to project failure and how this can be overcome. f) How does the authors’ target audience affect the reporting of research? The authors’ target audience comprises project managers, scholars, project sponsors as well as individual practitioners who seek to improve their personal skills and expertise in project management. Since the anticipated audience is generally literate and well-informed group, the authors’ use advanced management terminologies. The authors’ also appear to assume that the target audience is aware of the impending failures in project management due to internal political concerns, hence reflects on the various issues of political concerns developed through Making Projects Critical. The author also targets critics in the field of project management and scholars, hence proposed greater level of interaction among mainstream and critical project research communities. 4. What is being claimed? a) What are the main kinds of knowledge claim that the authors are making? The authors make theoretical knowledge claims on the correlation between project failure and project management. The authors hypothesise that failure in project management is assumed to be proof of deficient management, an issue that can be resolved through beet management practices. The authors clearly seek to develop translations of project failure using four various theoretical approaches, namely structural Marxism, positivism, ANT and interpretivism. Each approach presents theoretical approach to project failure differently. The objective of the authors is to investigate the phenomenon of project failure and how it should be understood through managerial or functionalist-positive perspective. Taking on this perspective, it is clear that the authors guide for critical analysis is theoretical knowledge. The authors evaluate several theoretical perspectives as a way to address managerial concerns with performativity. The author’s knowledge of performativity reflects the perspective that within management, knowledge and truths are combined to pursue management efficiency and success. b) What is the content of the main claims to knowledge and of the overall argument? The authors’ claim that their survey suggests that project management deficiency is correlated to project failure and that effective project management can be applied to overcome the failures. c) How clear are the authors’ claims and overall argument? The author’s claims are clearly stated in the introduction, where they present their hypothesis that “in project management, failure is often assumed to be evidence of deficient management: a problem that can be overcome by better management.” The statement clearly demonstrates the authors’ claims that project failures are linked to poor project management. The author’s findings are also clearly stated in the conclusion and abstract, where they suggest that “each theoretical perspective enables a specific analysis of empirical data that critiques the notion that project failures are easily, simply, or largely, associated with the failure of project management”. Here, the authors’ reflect how their pluralist analysis shows the political and social contextualisation of project management failure or success. The conclusion clearly states the authors’ conclusion, where the authors conclude that scholarly and practitioners concerns over project success or failure can contribute immensely to efforts to reflect on several matters of political concerns. d) With what degree of certainty do the authors make their claims? The authors’ express the authenticity of their claims by acknowledging other counter-evidence. In authenticating their findings that project management may identify its own limits, or the boundaries in which the project outcomes are viewed to be beyond management, the authors refer to other studies that established that positivism is related to narrow “performative managerialism”. e) How generalized are the authors’ claims – to what range of phenomena are they claimed to apply? The study is less generalisable because of the small population sample used in the study. The authors’ surveyed 25 project management practitioners. The study was also limited by scope since it only surveyed 10 project planning meetings in six construction projects between 2008 and 2010. This also shows that the results are less generalisable. f) How consistent are the authors’ claims with each other? The author’s claims are generally consistent throughout the text. Their argument that project failure is linked to management deficiency is reflected throughout the paper and supported by the theoretical approaches employed. The argument is also consistent with their findings and conclusion that efficient project management can improve project performance. 5. To what extent is there backing for claims? a) How transparent is it what, if any, sources are used to back the claims? The authors have backed up their claims with relevant and consistent references. The theoretical approaches used, namely structural Marxism, positivism, ANT and interpretivism are well referenced. To show transparency in their efforts, the authors acknowledge that while they do not assume that they can decide disproportionate epistemological, methodological and ontological perspectives, all the approaches they employ offer political insights into ways in which project failures generate critical concerns with the impacts and transformations of managerial power, interests and identities. These are also backed up by references of related studies. The sources of author’s claims are all specified. b) What, if any, range of sources is used to back the claims? The study depends on documents literature, mainly peer reviewed journals, to formulate and support the underlying arguments of the study, that project failure is correlated to deficiency in management. c) If claims are at least partly based on the authors’ own research, how robust is the evidence? The authors sufficiently documented the results of their analysis of responses from participants. A key limitation is that no statistical analysis was conducted to argue the validity of the responses. Overall, the sample consisted of 25 participants, who were interviewed using semi-structured interviews. The small sample population had limitation as it cannot be generalised to represent the entire population of project management practitioners. The conclusion gives a conclusive summary of the findings, which give a detailed account of the data analysis. d) Are sources of backing for claims consistent with degree of certainty and the degree of generalization? The sources of backing claims are consistent with the level of certainty and generalisation. Based on the author’s literature review, it is clear that there is adequate evidence supporting claims that project management performance relies on the management efficiency. The sources used for the theoretical approaches also logically and coherently support the authors’ claims. This degree of certainty adds authenticity to the authors’ claims. It also allows the authors to be objective in their critical analysis. 6. How adequate is any theoretical orientation to back claims? a) How explicit are the authors about any theoretical orientation or conceptual framework? The premise for the study expands on early study by Turner et al. (2013), Cicmil et al. (2009), Lindgren and Packendorff (2006), Bresnen (2007), Söderlund (2011) and Hodgson and Cicmil (2006), which studied the phenomenon of project failure based on managerial perspective and functionalist-positive perspective . [References cited in Sage, Dainty & Brookes (2013)]. b) What assumptions does any explicit or implicit theoretical orientation make that may affect the authors’ claims? In the study, theoretical knowledge claims on the correlation between project failure and project management are explored. The underlying assumption is that failure in project management is due to impacts of deficient management, which can however be resolved through beet management practices. The main approaches used in the study in examining project failure include structural Marxism, positivism, ANT and interpretivism approaches. c) What are the key concepts underpinning any explicit or implicit theoretical orientation? The main assumptions of the study are discussed in 4a above. They are consistent with early studies cited in 6a. 7. To what extent does any value stance adopted affect claims? a) How explicit are the authors about any value stance connected with the phenomena? The authors are generally objective in their stance on project failures. The stance is adopted before and validated after data collection. To some extent however, the authors have used partial interpretations of the project failures based on various theoretical approaches, namely ANT, structural Marxism, interpretivism and positivism. In any case, each of these approaches offer theoretical divergent views that are however politically and pragmatically related. b) How may any explicit or implicit value stance adopted by the authors affect their claims? The authors adopted the Factors/Success School to base the study. The stance enabled the researchers to orient their analysis around descriptive analysis on the factors and criteria of project failure or success. It is legitimate for the authors to adapt the stance as it enables them to select relevant empirical analysis on project failure. 8. To what extent are claims supported or challenged by others’ work? a) Do the authors relate their claims to others’ work? The authors relate their works with different studies. The authors referred to four theoretical orientations (structural Marxism, positivism, ANT and interpretivism) and some 115 published evidences to support their claims. However, although the authors employed many references in their study, there is little discussion on counter evidence or literature that offers different perspectives. b) If the authors use evidence from others’ work to support their claims, how robust is it? Several literature evidences used make the authors’ work robust and more credible. This makes underscores the limit of the study in being potentially partial. Indeed, a majority of the references such as Burrell and Morgan (1979), Tadajewski (2009), Parker and McHugh (1991), Alvesson et al. (2008), Jackson and Carter (1991) and Deetz, (1996) show bias towards discussing the correlations between deficient management and project failure. [References cited in Sage, Dainty & Brookes (2013)]. c) Is there any evidence from others’ work that challenges the authors’ claims, and if so, how robust is it? No discernible evidence from other works challenges the author's claims. Indeed, literature survey indicates that most evidences support the claim. 9. To what extent are claims consistent with my experience? The authors’ claims that project failures caused by deficiency in project management are consistent with my experience working with IT projects. Discussion with project managers, consultant and CIOs in my field of interest – IT projects – indicates that most project failures are due to inefficiency in project management. Based on my experience, most mega projects in the field of IT fail due to failure by the project managers and CIOs to interpret project risks. IT systems become fragile as project team attempt to complete complex projects with workarounds and in tight timeframe. In due course the complexity overpowers the project managers while projects go out of control. Project management is also a critical success factor for projects in the IT industry. While having certification for project management is critical, having the capability and experience is more significant. Failure by the project manager to balance the project needs with those of good governance can lead to failures in management. In my field of interest, experience shows that projects are rarely well-managed or on-schedule and on-budget when the project managers fail to strike the balance. 10. What is my summary evaluation of the text in relation to my review question or issue? a) How convincing are the authors’ claims, and why? The author’s claims that project failure result from failure of the management are convincing, as they are consistent with findings from a survey of literature on project management failures. Their strength lies in evidences that a project is considered to be a failure when it has failed to deliver outcomes in line with expectations. Project management methodology is prevalent in the modern-day business environment. However, cases of projects failures to deliver as per expectations are also prevalent. This signifies the reliance of the author’s claims on project failure. Drawing on their perspective, it is clear that competence of management practitioners is variable, as it depends on experience of the practitioners and the ability to effectively integrate project management methods into their practice. Therefore, since the authors’ claims are practicable and verifiable, then it should be argued that they are convincing. b) How, if at all, could the authors have provided stronger backing for their claims? Overall, it can be easily concluded that the authors’ survey of project management and project failures is based on assumption that has stronger backing. The authors were competent in these areas by alluding to a broad survey of literature and basing their research on established theoretical approaches. However, the authors’ selection of sources to back their claims was significantly partial, as only those studies that supported the claims were used. The authors could have made the research stronger and objective by also referring to studies that presented counter-arguments. The study can also be criticised for using a small study sample, which provided their claims with weaker backing. References Sage, D, Dainty, A & Brookes, N 2013, "A critical argument in favor of theoretical pluralism: Project failure and the many and varied limitations of project management," International Journal of Project Management, p.1-12 Read More