Traditional Approach to Project Management - Essay Example

?Running Head: report Effective project management has to be understood as a process that integrates knowledge of leadership, strategy, culture, and business functions with the skills to understand and manage social, technological, and information systems. [Name of the Writer] [Name of the Institution] [Name of the Professor] [Course] Introduction Projects are the fundamental units of processes. Technical initially, they turn strategic when time frame, involved labour, costs and also their association with the fulfilment of organizational objectives increase substantially. Though success dimensions of project are subjective and open to interpretation, yet the bottom line remains stuck to the fundamental tenets of cost, time and quality. However, with increased competition, widespread use of project management theories and processes in day to day functioning of businesses and blurring departmental and functional boundaries, projects are now considered no less than strategic processes underpinning theories and concepts of leadership, strategy, culture, communication, integration and appropriate know-how of relevant systems. This report aims at delving deep into this transformed outlook towards project management approach and how these management functions are shaping the traditional structure of project management into an amalgamation of project, change and process management. With the inclusion of relationship management, risk management, people satisfaction and motivation, empowerment and creativity; project management in itself is turning into a specialised body of knowledge comprising of the vital elements of management, strategy, human resources and operations. To demonstrate this tectonic shift, examples of various projects ranging from big construction to IT ones have been taken so that theories and concepts can be understood in real life terms. Defining projects and process Projects being commonplace in day-to-day activities have been defined in a number of ways by various bodies of knowledge. The Project Management Institute’s Body of Knowledge defines project as “a temporary endeavour undertaken to create a unique product, service or result” (Stanleigh 2010). Precise in its meaning, it connotes several characteristics of a project. Projects are time-bound, focus on a single time process and are usually complex in nature because of mingling of several distinct and unrelated functions. Limitation of time, cost and resources add to the characteristics of projects. On the contrary, processes are repeatable and do not suffer from limitations which are present in project management. Homogeneity is also more dominant in process management than do in project management. Traditional approach to project management Traditionally, projects used to be differentiated from that of processes because of superficial differences identified between the two. Their scope, extent of penetration in organization’s philosophy and strategy, resource allocation, level of inter-dependence of different functions and activities within the management of two and results achieved thereof lead to the misconception that projects cannot assume the status of processes and vice-versa. Typical project management cycle includes stereotypic phases defined as requirements analysis, resource management, project methodology, risk management and project closure. These phases are technical in nature with clear specifications of roles, duty, inputs and respective outputs. They do not recognize the evolving nature of business place and components of business management like planning, controlling, decision making and more contemporary functions of management namely leadership, strategy, cultural ramifications, knowledge of systems and overall congruence with the components of process management. This makes the traditional approach to project management short of fulfilling the current needs of business and unique propositions. Evolved components of project management Prosci (2011) specifically highlights the tripartite nature of project management which now combines elements of change management as well as process management. Project resembles a change because status quo’s are challenged and undertaken to be changed during projects. Behaviors, practices, norms and policies tend to get altered during project management and similar to a typical change management process; project management also involves resistance from some of the stakeholders, use of training, coaching and mentoring to weed away the resistance, development of coalitions, leaders providing directions and regular feedback process for effective management of change. Presence of features like continuous monitoring and improvement, periodic assessments of completion, conducting employee training to ensure regular flow of knowledge, managing people and using strategic tools like conflict management, motivation, people satisfaction and relationship management; turn projects into strategic processes (Mehta 2005). Figure 1: Prosci PCT Model Source: Prosci (2011) The figure 1 above depicts the interlinking of the tenets of leadership, strategic change and traditional project management. While every corner of the triangle serves a definite purpose, combination of two corners serve to fulfil specific goals. The connection of leadership and project management pertains to strategic decisions taken by top management level and relate to the timing, resource allocation and strategic direction and scope of the project. This is the intermingling of governance and technical side of the project and as such, combines the elements of planning, authorization, creation of legitimacy, responsibility and initiative and handling any kind of resistance from the related stakeholder entities. The connection of leadership and change management is the doable version or actionable constituent of the decisions taken in the previous connection. Combining the governance and people side of the project, this connection facilitates the actions of transparent communications, building cooperative relations and active participation from all the entities. It is specifically focused at developing and nurturing collaborative partnerships between the leaders of the project and employees who are working on different functions of the project. Modifying individual behaviors, perceptions and work practices through judicious use of leadership, motivation techniques and people satisfactions comprise the basic elements of this connection. The last connection of project and change management is obviously the operationalization of technical and people side of project. Dealing with technical intricacies of the project with the help of competence, skills and abilities of people is the prime goal of this connection. This part deals with risk management, benchmarking, optimum utilization of resources and overall integration of people and process. How management functions contribute and integrate to the deliverance of effective project management process Leadership Leadership in layman terms refer to the exhibition of traits which infuse confidence, motivation, commitment and zeal to achieve the predefined goals in people who are following the leader. In the context of project management, role of leadership assumes great significance and becomes too dynamic. The leader of a project has to handle not only the resources, but also the ‘hard and technical’ aspects of project strategy and ‘soft’ issues of people behavior. Administrative abilities and the skill to balance relations with commanding authority go hand in hand when leaders are managing projects. Theoretically, project leaders are supposed to be equipped of the qualities of flexibility, transparency in communication, collaborate with team members and should be influential in directing the behavior of people at work. Ong et al. (n.d) in simple terms explain the journey of project management from current to a desired state where changes in terms of continuous improvement and handling project members from diverse backgrounds bring hurdles in the way of effective project leadership. More than getting accustomed to the technical intricacies of project, individuals are required to be aware of changes in leadership style, approaches of doing work, reward systems, working with deadlines, time management and overall routine ways of doing things. In their research, the authors concluded that project management tools and techniques are secondary to the effectiveness and success of projects. What matters is the two-pronged ability of project manager to develop a culture integrating both the technical and people aspects of project. In this endeavour, project manager should possess all three of Managerial, Emotional and Intellectual Competence (MQ, EQ & IQ) to deliver the expected project results. Anantatmula (2010:17) identify the most important people-related factors (Figure 2) which have a bearing on the successful performance of projects. The author specifically highlights the distinction between management and leadership in projects. Former is more classic and typical in the sense that it involves stereotypic management functions of planning, controlling and coordinating which are more relevant in long term tine frame and on-going processes. Projects are characterised by uncertainties, complexities, short term duration and dynamic environment which calls for more of motivation and guidance than the management functions mentioned above. In fact, style of leadership adopted also influence the effectiveness of project management. Between transformational and transactional leadership styles, projects leaders are supposed to pursue the latter one as it connotes adoption of new approaches in problem solving, dealing with different stakeholders and focused more on meeting the goals and objectives through revamping of relationships and behaviors. Alternatively, Thamhain (n.d) term the entire project management as basically a team work and effective management of group dynamics forms the cornerstone to the success of projects. The author elaborates that critical dimensions of cooperative work environment, cohesive team, clearly established roles and responsibilities and establishment of two-way communication channel are required for project leaders to be effective and integrate the parts of a unified project (Figure 3). Crawford et al. (2008:S46) raise the issue of changing regulations, orders from top management and importance of dynamic leadership role when projects are being initiated and managed in public enterprises settings. Big construction projects, hosting of international gaming events and the like are examples of projects wherein mammoth amount of public money is invested. Leaders are held more accountable and questionable in these projects if delays or over-budgeting of projects happen. Thus, fostering motivation, commitment, trust and clear expectations become more profound for project leaders in these circumstances. An apt example of project failure due to political intervention and subsequent organizational culture hullabaloo is the IT integration of NHS Care Records Service (Currie & Guah 2006). Because of being a government initiated project, politicians had a greater say in the management of NHS project. As such, consensus could not be built between what politicians wanted, what project members understood and what project leader strategized. Lack of information and communication flow made it difficult for the project team to build a consistent agenda to work upon. Henceforth, accountability, direction and leadership all were lost in vain. Figure 2: Priority order of people-related factors Source: Anantatmula (2010:17) Another project failure rising out of misbalanced power relations in project team is the London Millennium Bridge project. Instead of cross-functional and integrated teams, this project operated ion traditional model of hierarchical relations and command and authority flowing from top to bottom. No room was given for team members’ innovation or creativity. The layered approach of designing, specifying details and combining the opinions of planners and designers lead the entire project to an overall failure (Reynolds 2001). Figure 3: Project Manager Model Source: Anantatmula (2010:17) Ong et al. (n.d) summarize the role of project manager as a leader in project undertakings. Ranging from creating a project culture which signifies innovation and independency, forming a governance structure which amalgamates all the related stakeholders, ensuring two-way and effective communication to managing change amidst resistance, uncertainty and complexity; project managers are the facilitators of achieving success and pre-determined targets of projects. Culture Cultural components in environment of project management are transient and varying because projects start and end with a definite purpose and hence have no continuity in their existence. As such, value and belief formation is not permanent. Cultural settings get all the more complex in matrix organizations where managers and members from different departments are glued together as project members and even the project leader might be an outside person or a person from an altogether different domain and knowledge area. Here, organizational culture and project management culture are two similar terms which are often confused. Morrison et al. (2006:40) clarify this confusion and assert that organizational culture has a great influence on the effectiveness of project management. Especially with the matrix form of organization, there happen to be the barriers of dual authority and conflicts between the roles of project and functional managers. Thus, in such situations, it becomes imperative that a subset of actual organizational culture is established and developed which manifests the specific characteristics of the project tools, environment, methodologies, guidelines, etc. Findings of Morrison et al. (2006:48) suggest that right culture for effective project management should exhibit features of flexibility, cross-functional integration, focus on performance of individuals, leader’s support, standardized set of rules which serve as benchmarks, balance between decentralization and accountability of power and authority and orientation towards fulfilling the needs of stakeholders (Figure 4). Figure 4: dimensions of a project management supportive culture Source: Morrison et al. (2006:48) Yazici (2009) shed more light on the interplay of organizational and project management culture within organizations and comment on how former affects the success and effectiveness of the latter. The author asserts that because project management is a subset of the bigger clan culture; if the organizational culture is intact of tenets of change management, sharing, collaboration, employee empowerment, cohesiveness in team work and sensitivity towards customers and relations; it automatically helps in dealing with project resources, budget, cost and labour strategically (Figure 5). Figure 5: Organizational culture dimensions supportive of project management Source: Brown (2008:5) Brown (2008:5) here highlights the role of leadership in creating a right culture which favours project management environment. ‘One strategy fits all’ philosophy cannot be applied here when leadership or management style is talked of. Projects vary on continuums of time, complexity, involvement of government, multi-functional extent and type. As such, cultural alignment between people, beliefs, working styles and adoption of new approaches depend largely on how project manager leads the way through. In this regard, level of authority exercised and partnerships in relations guide the way to the creation of a holistic project management culture. The fiasco of Virtual Case File (VCF) Project can be attributed to the overall cultural inconsistencies along with addition of leadership absence, communication gaps and unclear setting of goals and objectives. The VCF was primarily an IT integration project aimed at facilitating the working of FBI in their manual handling of records. Over budgeted and delayed, the reasons of failure of VCF were cited to be all which can arise from poor management of the people side of projects. From faulty requirement analysis to subjective interpretation of project guidelines and specifications; the turnover of management and leaders in this project was also high which altogether resulted in the absence of consistent direction, realistic expectations and framing of requirements and resources of project, motivation and breeding politics during the tenure of the project (Project Perfect 2005). Knowledge of social, technological and information systems Systems are needed for effective and smooth functioning of projects because these are the mediators or facilitators of interplay between different roles and activities. Combining information with communication and various material and service resources is assisted by the use of appropriate systems and software which are compatible with project tools, techniques, approach, methodology and technology. Knowledge of an optimum mix of social, technical and information systems helps not only in the operationalization of administration, but also in rationalizing the financial management of the project. Much of over or under-budgets, delays, gaps in communication with stakeholders and unclear project scope and strategies take place because project managers, leaders and members are not well equipped of the know-how of how systems work, what should be kept in place and how everything should be synchronised to achieve integrated results. The knowledge of systems within the context of project management can be understood as the application of a support tool which is actually a systemized methodology describing the procedures, inputs, outputs, results, examples and referential evidences which will help during time of emergency or uncertainty. The change project at Novotel Accor Group of Hotels is an apt example to demonstrate how project management specifications can be applied to a more sophisticated change management process (Calori, Baden-Fuller & Hunt 2000). Typical phases of project management were well matched with the component of change at Novotel which clearly depicted their understanding, expertise and knowledge of project systems, role of project leadership and a well woven strategy to combat people’s resistance. Table 1 below displays the matching up of project management stages with that of change management essentials at Novotel: Stages of Project management Attributes of Change project Specifications of change project at Novotel Initiation Requirement analysis, top level engagement Recognising customer needs, identifying business objectives, appointing project heads to provide direction to the project Planning Changing many things simultaneously, defining the end Conceptualising capabilities, skills, policies and standards; empowering employees, delegation of authority Execution Involving the users, devising transparent information policy Adopting new approaches to quality setting, involving the stakeholder groups, building cohesive teams. Controlling Making the project an ongoing activity, setting benchmarks Improving communication channels and flow of information, combating the resistance of people through reinforcing change Closure Managing the duration of change project Making the change project an on-going process with continuous improvements. Table 1: Novotel’s change management dimensions matching up with those of project management phases Strategy Strategy in its crude essence refers to long term plan or policy. In the backdrop of project management, strategy has become more enlightened today as organizations use Project Portfolio Management (PPM) to identify, select and execute projects which are financially and commercially viable (Parvez & Levin 2008). Unison of organizational culture, leadership, past experience and knowledge of systems help prioritizing the projects based on their cost and learning opportunities and legal and compliance implications. This gives rise to the notion that from now on, only those projects will be undertaken and executed which have a strategic connection with the organizational goal and mission. Strategy is the art of using scarce resources in an optimum way. Hence, application of correct leadership style, finding compatible and cost-effective systems, developing a coherent project management culture and building transparent communication channels; all form the basic constituents of strategy in project management. Undertaking risks, measuring their likelihood and impact on the constituents of Iron Triangle (Cost, Time and Quality) of the project (Atkinson 1999: 338) also fall under the ambit of strategy. Precisely, it is the sum total of all competences of project managers, cultural background and availability of respective systems in place. One prima facie evidence of big projects failing in their successful implementation is the redevelopment project of Wembley Stadium. Touted to be one of the biggest reconstruction projects ever, Wembley’s project management suffered from a host of pitfalls which raised questions on the effectiveness of its success and value of public money delivered. Both delayed and over-budgeted, Wembley’s project management was infected with absence of authoritative leadership, gaps in communication channel and unclear roles between the parties involved. As such, information flow also get disrupted in such circumstances where stakeholders are unaware of some of the important data which otherwise could help mitigate risks and save on possible losses. Cleland & Ireland (2004: 2) and Lim & Mohammed (1999: 244) opine that project success is measured and understood by different entities in their own way. Broadly speaking, there are two major groups involved in the value deliverance of a project. The project team and the general public/end user- the former measuring project success on the basis of completion of project within the constraints of time and cost; while the latter being more concerned by the overall satisfaction received from the final deliverable or result. Wembley’s success could not be restored on any of the above mentioned two dimensions. On the contrary, projects can be termed successful even if they fulfil the measurement criteria of any one of the groups. For instance, Opera House construction succeeded in establishing a historical moment of pride in the eyes of general public because of its construction marvel even though it was a failure for the project team because of its over budget and time lag. Similarly, the Millennium Dome was also considered successful for the internal customers, i.e., the project members because it was completed on time and under the limits of given funding. However, because it could not satisfy the people of its design and glamour, it failed on their measurement criteria. Conclusion Looking into the transformed nature and applications of newly included elements into project management body; it can be said that it has become more complicated along with strategic and reflective of organizational goals. As it combines the elements of management thinking and project management specific capabilities, dual competence and expertise is required by project managers now. Like wise, implications of communication, integration, knowledge of systems and need for cultural mingling have also risen with due increase in complexities of time, competition and international business. The need is to understand what each project entails in terms of size, type, stakeholders, relations, resources and requirements so that appropriate systems be put in place, strategy chalked out and organizational culture matched up with that of project management culture. References Anantatmula, V.S. (2010). “Project manager leadership role in improving project performance” Engineering Management Journal, 22(1), 13-22. Atkinson (1999). “Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, its time to accept other success criteria”. International Journal of Project Management Vol. 17, No. 6, pp 337-342. Brown, C.J. (2008). “A comprehensive organizational model for the effective management of project management”. South African Journal of Business Management, 39(3). Calori, R, Baden-Fuller, C & Hunt, B. (2000). “Managing Change at Novotel: Back to the future”. Long Range Planning, 33, 779-804. Cleland & Ireland. (2002). Project Management: Strategic Design and implementation, McGraw-Hill Professional, USA. Crawford, L, Cooke-Davies, T, Hobbs, B, Labuschagne, L, Remington, K & Chen, P. (2008). “Governance and support in the sponsoring of projects and programs” Project Management Journal, 39, Supplement, S43-S55. Currie, W.L & Guah, M.W. (2006). “IT-enabled health care delivery: The U.K National Health Service”. Information Systems Management, 7-22. Lim & Mohamed (1999). “Criteria of project success: an exploratory re-examination”, International Journal of Project Management Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 243-248. Mehta, S (2005). Effective Project Management [online] available from [accessed 1 May, 2011] Morrison, J.M, Brown, C.J & Smit, E.v.d.M. (2006). “A supportive organizational culture for project management in matrix organizations” South African Journal of Business Management, 37(4), 39-54. Ong, V, Richardson, D, Duan, Y, He, Q & Johnson, B. (n.d). “The role of project leadership in achieving effective project management”. Proceedings of the European Conference on Management, Leadership and Governance. Parvez, F.R & Levin, G. (2008). “What is project portfolio management?” AACE International Transactions. Project Perfect (2005). Why IT Projects fail [online] available from [accessed 1 May, 2011] Prosci (2011). Relationships between Prosci PCT Model corners [online] available from [accessed 1 May, 2011] Reynolds, N. (2001). I was naive designer of Wobbly Bridge [online] available from [accessed 4 May, 2011] Stanleigh, M (2010). Process management vs. project management [online] available from [accessed 1 May, 2011] Thamhain, H.J. (n.d). AMA Handbook of Project Management, Second Ed. Yazici, H.J. (2009). “The role of project management maturity and organizational culture in perceived performance” Project Management Journal, 40(3), 14-33. Read More