Eradicating Bureaucracy amongst Organisations - Term Paper Example

 «Eradicating Bureaucracy amongst Organisations» Introduction The prevailing unstable global economic climate has spelt the death knell for the traditional hierarchical organisation structures and subsequently heralded the advent of flat organisational systems that are exemplified by the project based organisation (Lindgren and Packendorff, 2008), Johnson et al. (2009), (Hill, 2009). Consequently as conventional market get more complex; projectification is becoming the preferred strategy of organising selected teams from within and outside the corporation into project teams tasked with specific assignments that could otherwise take long before implementation by following normal sectional departments and bureaucracies (Russell, 2009). Project management generally involves a select, composite enterprise that has a definite projected time of conclusion, depending on the aspirations and strategies centred on the duration expected outlay and value (Hodgson, 2002), (Hatch, 1997). The Development of Project Management Project management and proficiency is manifested in the production, management, control and partnership (Söderlund, 2005). Nevertheless project management and organisation has gradually shifted from the conventional fields of building and industrial companies to alternative sectors including the service sector. Likewise internal structures have also being ignored as project teams are set up from diverse sectors of the organisation. Most firms and departments have distinctive distinct core capabilities or wherewithal hence are more positively suited for some particular tasks. This therefore generates the need to organise teams around their core competencies while delegating other duties to the more capable group (Grabher, 2004), (Ekynsmith, 2002). These teams or groups constitute projects assigned to complete specific tasks thus eventually eradicating the traditional organisational structures. Hobday (2000) describes this project or project-based organisations (PBOs) as those that embrace projects as the foremost entities for edifice, enhancement, and contention. The concept of projectification has also extended to the larger society as codification of teams takes root in almost all sectors to work certain projects with the ‘best available brains’ as they eventually take on more gigantic assignments with selected members (Lundin, 1998), (Maylor et al., 2006), (Grabher, 2004). Bredin (2006) has disseminated projectification into micro and macro levels whereby the latter studies the trend of project-based organisations on an industry level while the former examines the projectification on an institution level. At the micro level firms either embark on projectified structure or others choose to initiate the projectification at a later stage even as the organisations opt on which of the system will be predominant (Bredin and Söderlund, 2006). Eradicating Bureaucracy amongst Contemporary Organisations The concept of projectification of tasks within private and public organisations has steadily gained momentum as the need for cutting back on bureaucracy and vertical hierarchical strictures in institutions become the norm rather than exception (Cicmil et al., 2008). Projectification is now the preferred system of undertaking assignments due to the nature of task oriented approach, duration non-constrains and other definite details that must be fulfilled to achieve the set goals hence avoiding hazy hierarchical departmentalised schemes (Whitty, 2010), (Söderlund, 2005). Projectification is however hindered in instances where the firm is dealing with external organisations that have not embraced the concept. This is essentially in organisations that maintain a high level of vertically inclined rigid structures that discourage informality particularly amongst government departments (Midler, 1995). Nevertheless, Maylor et al. (2006) have argued that excessive incorporation or widespread projectification may negatively effect the functioning of other departments as their roles become submerged and overlooked notwithstanding the critical part that they play within the organisation. Nonetheless, the role of projectification as initially envisioned by Midler should be valiant concentration on the organisation’s long-term projects that necessitate complex and innovative ideas that will be constrained within the confines of normal bureaucratic and authoritarian vertical structures (Diaz, 2007). As more firms engage in project processes as means of gaining a competitive edge in product production, Maylor et al. (2006: 663) have nonetheless affirmed that projectification also necessitates some fundamental changes within the organisation and many not necessarily eliminate the supposed bureaucratic bottlenecks as envisioned. Projectification and generation of a competitive advantage Projectification provides the organisation avenue to learn new systems and procedures that assist in integrating or assimilating fresh methods hence providing the institution exceptional progress to better models in addition to offering a competitive edge (Midler, 1995). Conversely, Bredin and Söderlund (2006) have alleged that the transitory nature of the project-based organisations compromise most of the typically instigated training programmes as the firm is more concerned with the accomplishment of specific projects and programs. Midler in his illustrious study at French firm Renault also raised the likelihood of upholding technical training in view of projectification rendering only transitory employees, thus lacking the patience to persevere in the project based organisations (PBOs) structure (Bredin, 2006). The significance of project management and projectification within organisations and nations is usually exemplified by the construction projects which contribute a significant proportion of most countries GDPs (10 -12 percent) while the entire industry has become a multi-trillion industry with the emergent nations like China, India and Brazil leading (Ahmed et al. 2005). This has consequently engaged huge sections of the population who have become specialized project managers or organisers (Hodgson, 2002), (Midler, 1995). Midler draws on the example of Renault which evolved from functional to project matrix to keep with rival firms allowing the company to undertake huge revolutionary manufacturing projects that could have been eschewed by the traditional organisational structures. In similar study of the Japanese automaker Toyota, Clark and Fujimoto (1991) however noted that such mega projects require wide scale reorganisation as new team leaders are appointed to coordinate the project teams. This operates outside the confines of the existing bureaucratic structures with singular objective of delivering the set targets (Ekynsmith, 2002). Organisational Strategies and Projectification Amongst an organisational structural context, a project can been described as the singular assemblage of synchronized deeds, with specific commencement and termination stages, embarked upon by either a person or an institution to realize explicit deeds and goals in unequivocal timetable, expenditure and performance stricture (Project Management Institute, 2000). Nevertheless, majority of firms have hybrid matrix organisational structures combining both vertical hierarchical systems and the horizontally inclined project-based schemes while other maintains either a pure vertical or horizontal structures (Bredin, 2006), (Hatch, 1997), (Lindkvist, 2004), (Hauck, 2007). According to Maylor et al. (2006) as the organisations discard the traditional vertical hierarchical structure to the lateral project based system, the nature of communication is also discontinued with the various team members operating rather independently. This allows them to bypass their section heads hence dissecting the normal bureaucratic routes. However, Sahlin-Anderson and Soderholm (2002) contend that this structure contrary to conventional belief only assist in asserting more control on the projects since the team members are unable to ‘hide’ under the façade of red-tape thus become more accountable. Strategic Alignment and Programmification Generally traditional projects had some definite timescales that encompass theory, description, implementation, and conclusion (Archibald, 1976). However, contemporary project management has expanded the scope with more demanded of the schemes and maintenance Davies et al. (2003). Nonetheless, in their model of ‘integrated solutions’ Brady et al. (2005), assert that projectification now extend even further; rearward into pre- proposal or pre- proffer phases and in advance outside the relinquishing period into the functioning sphere. Maylor et al. (2006) however assert that this projectification has now taken to extreme levels as even miniature tasks are projectified thus dismantling established organisational systems. Nonetheless, Vereeke (2003) insist that this programmes are also projects and cannot be disociated from others. This view is also shared by Lycett et al. (2004) who even term some of the multiple projects as part of the wider organisation programmes that are construed and divided into smaller units to ensure their faster completion and greater proficiency. Andersen and Jessen (2003: 458) have differentiated the concepts of project, program and portfolio management into distinct descriptions as per their functions: Project management- the administration of a specific project; Program management- an assemblage of projects with a collective goal; Portfolio management – the administrations of projects and programmes that may lack any discernible critical shared function, but which are nevertheless conducted concurrently. The projects in a programme can be characterized as a series of projects, each taking place in progression, a portfolio of projects carried out in sequence, or like a network of interconnected projects (Lycett et al. 2004). [See illustration figure 1] Maylor et al. (2006) have however disparaged the continued profligation of projects and consequently ambraced the concept of programmes, which they deem, offer a superior approach to the client terms and firm that might otherwise be compromised in the divergent projects running in the organisation. They have therefore asserted that: ‘programmification represents a more holistic approach to effecting fundamental and transformational change in organisations than projectification does’ (671). Figure 1 A PWC research revealed that most projects within organisations mainly involve IT upgrading (73 percent), performance enhancement programs (57 percent), software growth (49 percent), fresh merchandise growth (45 percent), tactical operations (43 percent), buildings (31 percent) and research and development - R&D (15 percent). This indicated that the conventional projects in engineering and R&D have basically being overtaken by other ventures as projectification takes root (Maylor et al. 2006). Disadvantages of Projectification Thomas et al. (2002) have doubted the veracity of the numerous project management models and literature on identifying the key success factors arguing that there is no distinct model that can consistently guarantee success on diverse projects. The adoption of formalised systems has been found to be detrimental in project management as the expected uniqueness and innovative frontier spirit is curtailed by rigid structures (Highsmith, 2004). In this regard, Streatfield (2001) and later Harkema (2003) have argued that there emerges a ‘impossibility of control’ as the existing strictures and hierarchy operating within the organisation are removed while in the project managers are also constrained in asserting ‘extreme control’ in their groups to avoid hampering the expected growth and creativity. Maylor et al. (2006) thus argue that the ever vilified bureaucracy can both useful and unfavourable depending on the situation and approach. They therefore caution that projectification should not be indiscriminately adopted for all schemes and plans but in a subjective and rational approach. Although Gee et al. (1996) maintain that the onset of project based schemes have enhanced organisational structures; Raisanen and Linde (2004) disagree arguing that the process has just redefined a fresh brand of bureaucracy as the system of gets entrenched within contemporary organisational structures. The integration of projectification is evident as procedural handbooks are introduced in organisations to guide successful project management (Maylor et al., 2006). Nevertheless, Söderlund (2005) argues that some departments and firms lack the essence of teamwork since they prefer to lone or separately undertaking their duties hence tend to jetission some projects. Bell and Morse (2004) have explored the apparent discrepancy experienced in most of the public and private sustainable projects between the projected linear targets and outlays on one hand and the ‘unsatisfactory outcomes’ which inevitable necessitate further development to achieve the expected result. The authors term this as ‘circularity’ since the project seems to have no feasible conclusion even with the high expectations and issues of liability and worth causing uproar and lack of credibility (Bell and Morse, 2005). This circularity progression has resulted in project owners or client now demanding long-term commitment whereby turn-key contracts are issued with the understanding of not only delivery and construction but also servicing or maintenance for extended periods (Ivory et al. (2001). In multiple projects within the same firm or organisation, there often emerges a conflict as the numerous schemes compete for the same resources including equipment and personnel thus putting into question the issue of timescale as the duration cannot otherwise be guaranteed (Platje and Seidel, 1993). Consequently, Dornish (2002: 321) argues there is need to critically appraise the need for some of the ‘projects’ as various individuals rush to set up new projects or re-brand existing programs as projects. Accordingly, Lenfle and Midler (2002: 11) affirm that projects should be prioritised only when their significance reach ‘a certain critical mass’ to avoid stagnation of the vital schemes since most of the assigned personnel and resources will be interlocked thus creating a grid-lock. Bredin (2006) has asserted that the impact of projectification on human resources management (HRM) can therefore be found in the shifting roles of HRM based on the issues linked to proficiency, dependability, transformation, and personnel. However, the advent of projectification may introduce adverse effects on the organisation’s human resource development as the temporary nature of projects induce a sentiment of impermanence hence generating instability within the firm or institution (Bredin and Söderlund, 2006). Projectification similarly negatively affects the traditional work schedules which are irreparably disrupted since the pressure on project-based programmes inevitably necessitates long uneven hours. Engwall, et al. (2003) thus asserts that the projectification within the organisation compromise the employees schedules hence leading to stress and motivational factors being impinge on. Among the projectified firms, there are frequencies of disquiet over vocational progression due to the diffusion of hi-tech disposed control in projects (Hobday, 2000). Kumar (2005) nevertheless maintains that PBOs offer the best forum for propagating learning in firms since they are more technically inclined unlike the vertical conventional institutions that struggle to assimilate fresh innovative ideas. Transformations in Organisation Structure due Market Demands In an apparent response to market demands and changes, most organisations are increasingly managing their events around project-based structures both among their recurring production and also expansion ventures (Whittington et al., 1999). This is manifest mostly amongst firms dealing with IT, executive advisory, equipment review, information and tools-based firms (Ekynsmith, 2002). Others include leisure, culture, publicity and marketing (Söderlund, 2005). In large corporation that have diverse complex systems, projectification is even more apparent as the need to organise project teams for specific tasks hence reduce the commodities life cycles become prevalent especially manufacturing companies. The embryonic culmination of most projects is typically appraised upon specific objectives and the expected ‘value creation’ it generates to all the stakeholders (Winter et al. 2006), (Lundin and Soderholm, 1995), (Huzzard, 2003), Cicmil et al. 2008). Conversely, Klakegg (2009: 2) asserts that this sence of accomplishment may be subject to the specific outlook of either the contractors (implementers) or the project owners/financiers. This is usually caused by the discordancy and breakdown in communication considering the expected value of the project amonst the two hence leading to divergent views (Kaufmann and Kraay, 2007). This is particularly evident among public projects which lack a universal sence of achievement dependent on each diverse stakeholder (Samset, 2008), (Olsson and Klakegg, 2008). Lundin and Soderholm (1995:455) therefore argue that this ‘extreme’ projectification has resulted in projects departing from the generally accepted timescales due to the excessive dissections that lead to uncoordinated project management. Although Davies et al. (2005) argue that the distinctiveness of each particular project has become vague; Maylor et al. (2006) disagree asserting that this form of modelling leads to loss of the innovative spirit typified by branding. This follows Middler (1995) preposition of further projectification to promote an entrepreneurial character amongst the project managers as they explore further creative exploits. The impact of projectification on organisations in terms of structure, governance, functions, communication, valour, strategies, yield, career, number of projects, and capabilities ensuing is outlined below (Maylor et al. 2006). Focus Impact of Projectification Structure Enhanced application of project composition. Governance Shifting of authority from sectional/departmental heads to project managers. Change of Functional Status Projects now justifiably recognised and funded while vertical, functional and other hierarchical status now disregarded. Communication Communication lines now horizontally established from the lower echelons directly to the executive bypassing normal. vertical structures Level of endeavour Improved by the nature of reduced red-tape while also aptly controlled by the project managers and other. organisational control systems Significance of project procedures/tactics Enhanced import of projectification of organisation structures through establishing handbooks and training manuals Process of learning Training procedures enhanced as knowledge filtering through departments is curtailed and a singular system is adopted. Enhanced yield or upshot – the level of turnover There are active project evaluations for each specific project in addition to assessing the value of each. Vocational supervision and enduring systems; proficiency Projectification has now gained ‘legitimacy’ as organisations and employees gradually come to accept the efficacy of the structures while permanent offices are set up. Contractor systems affiliations The contractor networks are transformed whereby the project team engages only the most efficient and cost effective. The quantity of projects handled The quantity of projects run is enhanced or added as the structures become more entrenched. Capabilities mandatory Forecast, seeking supplies and implementing set projects. Source: Adapted from Maylor et al. (2006: 666) Conclusion The demand of current global competitive economic environment has led to drastic changes in the organisational configuration of corporations and other institutions from the hierarchical to flat structures. The emergence of project based structures which follow the latter has been mainly guided by the need to hasten and integrate more creativity in tasks or projects that could otherwise have been hampered by conventional rigid departmental bureaucracies. Nevertheless, the proliferation of projectification has meant that too many projects compete for the same resources hence the programmification of the projects into programs and portfolios to integrate and coordinate the numerous schemes. Projectification has nonetheless led to greater efficiency and productivity within organisations as the formal rigid structures were dismantled. However there is an urgent need to control the projectification to manageable levels to avoid duplicity and stagnation. References Ahmed, S. M., Ahmad, A., Pantouvakis, J. P., Azhar, S. and Zheng, J. (2005). Advancing Engineering, Management and Technology. Third International Conference on Construction in the 21st Century - September 15-17, 2005. Athens, Greece: CITC-III Greece. Andersen, E. and Jessen, S. (2003). Project Maturity in Organisations. International Journal of Project Management, 21(6):457–61. Archibald, R. (1976). Managing high technology programs and projects. New York: Wiley. Bakker, R. M., Knoben, J., deVries, N. and Oerlemans, L.A.G. (2010). The Nature and Prevalence of Inter-Organizational Project Ventures: Evidence from a large scale Field Study in the Netherlands 2006-2009. International Journal of Project Management. Bell, Simon and Morse, Stephen (2004) a. Delivering sustainability therapy in a projectified world. Proceedings International Sustainable Development Research Conference, 2004. Manchester, UK. Bell, Simon and Morse, Stephen. (2005) b. Delivering sustainability therapy in sustainable development projects. Journal of Environmental Management, 75(1), pp. 37–51. Brady, T. Davies, A. and Gann, D. M. (2005). Creating value by delivering integrated solutions. International Project Management Journal, 23:360–5. Bredin, K. and Söderlund, J. (2006). Perspectives on Human Resource Management: An explorative study of the consequences of projectification in four firms. International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management, Inderscience. Bredin, K. (2006). Human Resource Management in Project-Based Organisations: Challenges and Changes. Linköping: Linköpings universitet. Cicmil, P., Sevtlana, Hodgson and Damian (2006). New Possibilities for Project Management Theory: A Critical Engagement. Project Management Journal, Vol. 37, No. 3,111-122, Cicmil, P., Lindgren, M. and Packendorff, P (2008). Critical Project Studies. Ephemera. Davies, A.Brady, T. and Tang, P. (2003). Delivering integrated solutions. Brighton: SPRU-CENTRIM, Diaz, P. L. (2007). Project Management Organizational Structures: Project Management for Development Organizations. PM4DEV: Project Management for Development (PM4DEV). Diegel, O. (2007). Project Management Brief Guide. AUT University: Creative Industries Research Institute. Dornisch, D. (2002)a. The evolution of post-socialist projects: trajectory shift and transitional capacity in a Polish region. Reg Stud , 36(3): 307–21. Dornisch, D. (2001)b. The Evolution of Post-Socialist Projects: Trajectory Shift and Transitional Capacity in a Polish Region. Regional Studies: : Bonn University. Ekynsmith, C. (2002). Project organization, embeddedness and risk in magazine publishing. Regional Studies, , 36(3), 229–243. Gee, J.P., Hull, G. and Lankshear, C. (1996). The new work order. St. Leonards, NSW:: Allen and Unwin. Grabher, G. (2004). Learning in projects, remembering in networks? Communality, sociality, and connectivity in project ecologies. European Urban and Regional Studies , 11(2), 103–123. Harkema, S. (2003). A complex adaptive perspective on learning within innovation projects. Learn Org , 10(6):340–6. Hatch, M. J. (1997). Organization Theory. Modern Symbolic and Postmodern Perspectives. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Hauck, C. (2007). How to Choose the Right Project Management Office Structure for Your Organization’s Culture. Collegiate Project Services. Hill, C. (2009). International Business: Competing in the Global Market Place. London: International Edition, 7th Eds., McGraw-Hill. Horiuchi, T., Seki, T, and Enomoto, S. (2003). Provisions of New Enterprise Project Management Structure Post Paradigm of Japanese TQM Success Way. Chiba Institute of Technology. Highsmith, J. (2004). Agile project management. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley. Hobday, M. (2000). The project-based organisation: an ideal form for managing complex products and systems? Research Policy, Vol. 29, No. 7/8: 871-894. Hodgson, D. (2002). Disciplining the professional: the case of project management. J Manage Stud, 39(6):803–21. Huzzard, T. (2003). The Convergence of the Quality of Working Life and Competitiveness. Stockholm, Sweden: National Institute for Working Life. Ivory, C. J., Thwaites, A. and Vaughan, R. (2001). Design For Maintainability: The Innovation Process In Long Term Engineering Projects. Future of Innovation Studies Conference - 20-23 September 2001. Eindhoven. Johnson G., Scholes K. and Whittington, R. (2009). Fundamentals of Strategy. Harlow: FT: Prentice-Hall. Kaufmann, D. and Kraay, A. (2007). Governance Indicators: Where Are We, Where Should We Be Going? Policy Research Working Paper 4370: World Bank Institute. Klakegg, O. J. (2009). Challenging the Interface between Governance and Management in Construction Projects. 5th Nordic Conference on Construction Economics and Organisation 10. – 12. June (pp. 2-25). Reykjavik, Iceland: Norwegian University of Science and Technology. KPMG. (2002). Programme management survey. London: KPMG. Kumar, R. (2005). Identification of Problems Associated with Implementing Organizational Learning through A Systems-based Approach. Journal of Knowledge Management. Lenfle, S. and Midler, C. (2002). Innovation-based competition and the dynamics of design in upstream suppliers. International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, vol. 2, no.5. Lindgren, M. and Packendorff, J. (2008). Living by Projects: A Gender Perspective on International Project Management. Umeå, Sweden: Umeå School of Business & Economics. Lindkvist, L. (2004). Governing project-based firms: Promoting market like processes within hierarchies. Journal of Management and Governance, Vol. 8: 3-25. Lundin, R. and Soderholm, A. (1995). A theory of the temporary organization. Scand J Manage, 11(4):437–55. Lundin, R. and Soderholm, A. (1998). Conceptualizing a projectified society: discussion of an eco-institutional approach to a theory on temporary organizations.In Maylor et al. Kluwer Publishing. Lycett, M. R. (2004). Programme Management: A Critical Review. International Journal of Project Management, 22(4): 289–99. Maylor, H. B.-D. (2006). From Projectification to Programmification. International Journal of Project Management, 24 (2006) 663–674. Maylor, H. (2001). Beyond the Gantt chart. European Management Journal, 19(1):92-100. Midler, C. (1995). Projectification of the firm: the Renault Case. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11(4):363–75. Olsson, N.O.E. and Klakegg, O. J. (2008). Findings from the Concept Research Programme. Presentation at Concept International Symposium 26. September 2008. Trondheim. Pijpers, V. G. (2009). Exploring Inter-Organizational Alignment in Value Webs. Amsterdam: VU University Amsterdam. Pisano, G. (1997). The development factory. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press. Platje, A. and Seidel, H. (1993). Breakthrough in multiproject management: how to escape the vicious circle of planning and control. International Journal of Project Management, 11(4):209. Project Management Institute. (2000). A guide to the project management body of knowledge. Pennsylvania: Project Management Institute. Raisanen, C. and Linde, A. (2004). Technologizing discourse to standardize projects in multi-project organizations: hegemony by consensus? Organization Journal, 11(1):101–21. Rose, R. C., Kumar, N., Abdullah, H. and Ling, G. Y. (2008). Organizational Culture as a Root of Performance Improvement: Research and Recommendations. Contemporary Management Research, Pages 43-56, Vol. 4, No. 1. Russell, M. (2009). Organizational Structures in Project Management. Retrieved August 20, 2010, from Ezinearticles.com/: Sahlin-Anderson, K. and Soderholm, A. (2002). Beyond project management: new perspectives on the temporary–permanent dilemma. Malmo: Copenhagen Business Press. Samset, K. (2008). Rational choice, political consensus, or pure chance? Presentation at Concept International Symposium 26. September. Trondheim. Söderlund, J. (2005). Developing Project Competence: Empirical Regularities in Competitive Project Operations. International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 9, No. 4 (Dec. 2005) pp. 451–480. Streatfield, P. (2001). The paradox of control in organizations. London: Routledge. Thomas, J. D. (2002). Selling project management to senior executives. Newtown, Penn: PMI Publishing. Vereeke, A. P. (2003). Classification of development programmes and its consequences for programme management. International Journal of Operational Production and Management, 23(10): 1279–90. Whittington, R. P. (1999). Change and complementarities in the new competitive landscape: A European panel study, 1992–1996. Organization Science, 10(5), 583–600. Whitty, S. J. (2010). Project management artefacts and the emotions they evoke. . International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 3 (1) 22‐45. Winter, M. S. (2006). Directions for future research in project management: the main findings of a UK government governmentfunded. Project Management Journal, 24(8). Read More