Current Issues and Concepts in Project Management - Essay Example

Current Issues and Concepts in Project Management Managing Complexity Table of Contents Introduction……………………………………………………………… 3 Problem Overview: The Challenge of Managing Complexity………………………………………………………………... 4 Complexity and Challenge…………………………………………………. 5 Managing Complexity……………………………………………………… 7 Experience…………………………………………………………… 7 Learn………………………………………………………………… 8 Revise…………………………………………………………………8 Promulgate…………………………………………………………....8 Emphasis on Simplification…………………………………………………... 10 Conclusions…………………………………………………………………… 12 References…………………………………………………………………….. 13 Introduction This paper discusses some major issues that influence project managers. These particular issues have been largely ignored in traditional models of project management. On second thoughts, they have always been essential, although they have not received the attention they ought to have (Richman 2002). At present, though, they hold a forceful importance that is forcing involved individuals to place them at the core of their management priorities. As this paper suggests, an attribute of contemporary business environment is its disorganised character. This disarray is embedded in high levels of complexity and unparalleled levels of change. Consequently, complexity and drastic change build a high-risk environment wherein decision makers have little faith about the future. They view experiences through dense perspectives and base their decisions on guesswork and small measures of certainty (Lewis 2007). Making things more difficult is the aggressively competitive environment that has emerged with the introduction of the Internet and the spread of globalisation. This competitive environment has motivated a fascination with winning customers’ hearts and minds. In the contemporary business environment, customer satisfaction rests at the core of most business endeavour (Lewis 2007). This paper will explore the new business climate and their implications for project management. The traditional saying “the only constant is change” (Frame 2002: 26) ceases to be a witty oxymoron and is now a prevailing reality in contemporary business life. Untapped change is a primary determinant of project failure. Changes in markets, technology, regulations, budgets, and personnel motivate changes in project requirements and demands. Project personnel discover themselves operating in ‘rubber baselines’ (Frame 2002: 26). Problem Overview: The Challenge of Managing Complexity The abundance of alternatives is obvious in project management. For instance, there are several workable ‘scheduling software packages’ (Howes 2001: 13) being recommended by suppliers. How does an individual choose from such diversity? A great deal of the complexity of present projects is linked to the diversity of alternatives confronting all project actors, from customers to team members to project managers. These alternatives cover all project features. For instance, consider the alternatives related to the buying of a product or service (Howes 2001). Practically any product or service to be used on a project has a variety of suppliers or providers, each with its distinct qualities (Frame 2003). In purchasing a television set, should I opt for product A, which is especially wide, or product B, which is made up of durable LCD, or product C, which has a long functional life? Choosing was significantly easier in the past, when the array of selections was limited (Frame 2003). The problem of too much alternatives that project managers and personnel face is apparent. They should always make choices from a variety of employees, suppliers, plans, recommended solutions, pledge dates, and others (Gillard & Price 2005). The reality that their projects have a tendency to be inimitable puzzles them because the knowledge gained from working through alternatives on an earlier project are usually unrelated to the present one (Gillard & Price 2005). Customers are also confused with options. In choosing a product or service, they should make a decision on what basic qualities they look for in a product, what features can be included, how much they can or eager to pay, and what suppliers to deal with (Reiss 1995). If they happen to be confused with the diversity of alternatives, they may be incapacitated and feel unable to make a decision, or they may feel anxious once they make a decision and suddenly change their minds. Project personnel must be responsive to this problem (Reiss 1995). A significant part of their tasks is to lead customers through the process of decision making, guiding them in their direction-finding. One technique to accomplishing this is to simplify the innately difficult decisions customers should make (Thomsett 2002). Complexity and Challenge Complexity is usually related with challenge or difficulty. A task that is difficult to accomplish is commonly seen as more complex than a task that is easy. Quantum physics is more complex than algebra. Complexity entrenched in difficulty is commonly dealt with through mastery or expertise (Sutterfield, Friday-Stroud, & Shivers-Blackwell 2007). For an individual learning how to drive a car, the attempt seems rather complex or difficult at first. Mastery can be achieved through practice, and with mastery what appears difficult one day may appear fairly easy the next (Sutterfield et al. 2007). To individuals who are unfamiliar to a project, understanding its entirety may appear unworkable. Regard what they should know (Frame 2002: 28): The Project Management Institute’s Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge Guide (2000) stipulates that the competent project manager should have some degree of mastery over time management, cost management, scope management, human resource management, risk management, quality management, procurement management, communication management, and integration management. Beyond this, project workers are expected to have the technical competence to understand the specific content of their projects. There is much to master even on relatively simple projects. One feasible solution to the mastery problem is education and experience. Thorough research and direct experiences allow project personnel to work with ease in their complex environments. Projects are rarely simple. But knowledgeable and experienced projects managers become skilled at managing complexity and focusing on the basics (Hannigan & Browne 2000). The briskness of change nowadays intensifies complexity. One way it accomplishes this is by fashioning moving targets. This is observed obviously in people’s efforts to identify needs and demands. Even as people think they completely understand the needs of the customers, they are shifting (Hannigan & Browne 2000). Bases of change include changing market or economic forces, changing technology, changing players, and changing status of competitors. Change also determines two aspects of complexity (Kendrick 2003). First, it results in enlargements in the amount of information that should be managed. Knowledge develops ultimately, and at present it is developing rapidly. Second, change enlarges the alternatives people confront (Kendrick 2003). If the product life cycle for a laptop computer is two years, then over a two-year period, people encounter the one laptop computer. However, if the life cycle has contracted to six months, then in a two-year period, people actually encounter four separate products, adding to an increase of alternatives people face. In some way this change should be managed. Managing Complexity Organisations can employ a variety of techniques to manage complexity. The key to applying effective techniques and procedures is encompassed in the cycle ‘experience, learn, revise, promulgate’ (Frame 2002: 34). An organisation that aims to reinforce its capacities and skills in managing complexity should wilfully work to enhance each of these techniques thoroughly. Petroski (1985 as cited in Frame 2002: 34) has demonstrated that this careful procedure underlies the successes of people’s greatest engineering attempts. Experience Individuals in the organisation should be motivated to be familiar with and detail experiences that can have a considerable effect on operations (Frame 2002: 34): For instance, a data entry clerk might notice that he is required to enter the same part number for a component in two locations on a single data form. The second entry is redundant and time-consuming and increases the likelihood of data entry error. The data entry clerk should distinguish that what s/he confronts is not simply an engrossing difficulty but something that must be remedied. Procedures must be present to allow him/her to report this anomaly to a person who can instigate actions to solve it. Rewards may be initiated to recognise proposals that enhance productivity. Suggestion boxes and quality circles are widespread techniques in capturing employee experiences (Frame 2002). Learn Once a dilemma has been discovered, an effort should be initiated to grasp both its wider and direct repercussions (Dinsmore & Cabanis-Brewin 2006). In the data entry illustration, main concerns that should be dealt with include these: (1) immediate issue, such as what can be done to lessen the difficulty on this data form; (2) broader issue, such as the costs or prevalence of data redundancy (Dinsmore & Cabanis-Brewin 2006). Revise When the full repercussions of the difficulty are understood, methods for sorting it out at present and in the future must be determined (Frame 1999). This will result in an adjustment in the manner business is carried out. It is essential that the report of the new methods be understandable and easily recognised. It is also essential that old methods that are at present outdated be deleted (Frame 1999). Promulgate New ideas that are kept in a dark vault are worthless. Apparently, they should be disseminated so that employees are made aware of their presence. Primarily, they must be integrated into a master process and technique document that records all of the formal or established rules directing procedures that must be exercised on the project (Frame 2002). Furthermore, all the people directly influenced by the changes on rules must be individually informed, through e-mail, brochures, meetings, or Web page postings, of the new processes (Frame 2002). The importance of well-thought out and clear processes and techniques for managing complexity is unquestionable. It is a feature of all the organisations that show proficiency in effectively performing complex or difficult operations (Graham & Englund 2004). However, processes and techniques have their drawbacks as well. Two dilemmas show up: they contribute to bureaucracy and they suppress innovation. The relationship between processes and techniques and bureaucracy is apparent (Lewis 2007). Rules should be written and records kept. Project actions should be regularly monitored and re-evaluated to guarantee whether they still conform to the rules. Records of processes and techniques have a tendency to become overstuffed as unimportant rules are integrated and outdated rules are not deleted. Finally, the records may become a dense thicket that impedes developments rather than advances it (Lewis 2007). Processes and techniques suppress innovative solutions in at least two ways. First, they hamper the exchange of innovative insights. More energy is used up trying to conform to the rules than creating new ideas (Nembhard & Shtub 2009). Second, they mirror the growth of experiences whose relevance may cease to be pertinent. Always concentrating on how things have been successful in the past limits the imagination from envisioning how things may be in the near future (Nembhard & Shtub 2009). Emphasis on Simplification A visible technique in managing complexity is keeping everything as simple as possible. A vital means to simplify project complexity is through ‘heuristics’ (Frame 2002). Heuristics are “rules of thumb that provide rough guidance on actions and their consequences” (Frame 2002: 36). A well-known case of a heuristic is the 80-20 rule of Pareto. Its application can be shown with an illustration from the area of quality control (Frame 2002: 36): Experience shows that roughly 80 percent of the quality problems we encounter can be attributed to 20 percent of all possible causes. Let’s say that we find twenty sources of problems in a particular production process. The 80-20 rule suggests that if we direct our attention to working on the four key sources (20 percent of the total), 80 percent of our problems will be resolved. An additional means to simplify project complexity is to make frequent employment of simple test samples. The plan here is to prevent becoming inundated with all the complete attributes of a problem and to concentrate on resolving milder, manageable components of it one by one. This is a frequently used method in software development (Wysocki, Lewis, & Decarlo 2001). For instance, in the top-down planning of a composite accounting system, data inputted into previous versions of system test might be guided to ‘stubs’ that clearly specify that the data have achieved their objectives. As the system develops, the stubs slowly undertake more and more intricate functionality. Eventually, they develop into fully operating units (Liberatore, Stout, & Robbins 2007). On the other hand, one of the ironies of complexity is that the cost people usually incur to make a task appear simple is enhanced complexity. This is usually observed in software applications. User-friendliness lessens the requirement for the mastery of difficult processes and concepts. People observe instances of simplicity through complexity in their everyday activities (Wysocki et al. 2001). A short time ago, ordinary car mechanics had a systematic or detailed knowledge of the mechanisms of a car engine so that when it fails, they would be capable of identifying and repairing the problem from their own knowledge of car engines. With the invention of fused circuitry into automobile engines, engines become very difficult for mechanics to completely understand (O’Ledyard & Porter 1994). Problems at present were identified using very advanced automated engine analysers, or forms of expert systems. From a mechanic’s point of view, diagnosis became quite simple and easy: one simply had to connect the automated analyser to the engine and interpret the printout (Reiss 1995). In this case, simplification has been realised through a considerable acceleration of unknown complexity. A great deal of the simplicity through complexity discussed above is being attained through expert systems. Employing support tools of artificial intelligence, these expert systems try to copy the decision making and thinking processes of professionals (Thomsett 2002). Theoretically, the computer fills the need for a professional or an expert. A great deal of the early attempt in expert systems was performed in medicine, where it was expected that a physician in an office might monitor the symptoms of a patient, enter the data or information into a computer unit, which would be connected to a massive database holding all identified physical illnesses, and then interpret the diagnosis from the computer panel (Thomsett 2002). In reality, the accomplishments of expert systems have been frustrating. Problems have surfaced mainly in two domains. First, current expert systems are incapable of capturing the fine points of the vague human logic. Numerous of the most crucial decisions people make at home or at work have a huge subjective element that expert systems have consistently failed to copy (Kendrick 2003). Second, numerous expert systems are restrained by the knowledge source they access. Knowledge is highly active, constantly changing (Kendrick 2003). Given the scarcity of resources, how can people constantly advance the knowledge source of their expert system to sustain its importance to the actual world? Even when they had ample resources to perform this, what form of knowledge would people have to add in the knowledge source? It is obvious that currently, expert systems are most workable in rule-based, highly structured environments. This is excellent news to individuals who are reliant on processes and techniques to help them in managing big, complex projects (Frame 2002). These processes and techniques are exactly the types of application wherein expert systems are most suitable. Conclusions Complexity is a reality of contemporary life. People’s lives nowadays are noticeably more complex that they were in the past, and they will be far more complex in the future than at present. One of the big challenges individuals and organisations confront is becoming skilled at managing complexity. It is exactly project management’s history in effectively dealing with complexity that furnishes it its strong attraction to modern management theorists. They perceive in it an expedient approach to managing the complexity that is engulfing contemporary organisations. Nevertheless, in spite of its previous successes in handling complexity, project management is straining its power and capability of fulfilling tasks in a cost-effective way. Unluckily, those people who ponder about how projects can most effectively be accomplished have not come up with any innovative insights on how to deal with complex tasks more successfully. Currently, the only advice scholars can offer is to keep on using the models that have worked previously, to concentrate on sustaining painstaking project order and discipline through the improvement and maintenance of comprehensive processes and techniques, the improvement and testing of approaches to project management, the close examination of time and cost information, and the execution of rigid change management processes. Ultimately, all of these models only say one thing: do not work smart, work hard. References Devaux, S. A. (1999) Total Project Control: A Managers Guide to Integrated Project Planning, Measuring, and Tracking, New York: John Wiley & Sons. Dinsmore, P. C. & Cabanis-Brewin, J. (eds.) (2006) The AMA Handbook of Project Management, New York: AMACOM. Frame, J. D. (2003) Managing Projects in Organizations: How to Make the Best Use of Time, Techniques and People, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Frame, J. D. (1999) Project Management Competence: Building Key Skills for Individuals, Teams, and Organizations, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Frame, J. D. (2002) The New Project Management: Tools for an Age of Rapid Change, Complexity and Other Business Realities, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Gillard, Sharlett & Price, James. (2005) The Competencies of Effective Project Managers: A Conceptual Analysis, International Journal of Management , 48+. Graham, Robert J. & Englund, Randall L. (2004) Creating an Environment for Successful Projects, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hannigan, Cecilia & Browne, Mike. (2000) Project Management: Going the Distance, International Journal of Instructional Media , 343. Howes, N. R. (2001) Modern Project Management: Successfully Integrating Project Management Knowledge Areas and Processes, New York: AMACOM. Kendrick, T. (2003) Identifying and Managing Project Risk: Essential Tools for Failure-Proofing Your Project, New York: AMACOM. Lewis, J. P. (Ed.) (2007) Fundamentals of Project Management, New York: AMACOM. Lewis, J. P. (2001) Project Planning, Scheduling, and Control: A Hands-On Guide to Bringing Projects in on Time and on Budget, New York: McGraw-Hill. Liberatore, Matthew, Stout, David & Robbins, Jack Jr. (2007) Key Project Management Concepts for Accountants, Management Accounting Quarterly , 15+. Nembhard, David & Shtub, Avraham. (2009) Comparing Competitive and Cooperative Strategies for Learning Project Management, Journal of Engineering Education , 181+. OLedyard, John & Porter, David. (1994) Using Computerized Exchange Systems to Solve and Allocation Problem in Project Management, Journal of Organizational Computing , 271. Reiss, G. (1995) Project Management Demystified: Todays Tools and Techniques, London: E & FN Spon. Richman, L. (2002) Project Management Step-by-Step, New York: AMACOM. Sutterfield, Scott, Friday-Stroud, Shawnta & Shivers-Blackwell, Sheryl. (2007) How Not to Manage a Project: Conflict Management Lessons Learned from a DOD Case Study, Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management , 218+. Thomsett, M. C. (2002) The Little Black Book of Project Management, New York: AMACOM. Wysocki, Robert K., Lewis, James P., & Decarlo, Doug. (2001) The World Class Project Manager: A Professional Development Guide, Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books. Read More