Tools for Complex Projects

Kaye Remington, Julien Pollack

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN: 9780566087417
• eBook ISBN: 9781317009818
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Business General
• Index: Business

Traditional project management approaches assume that project contexts are unchanging and key factors, though complicated, are reducible to unambiguous elements for management and control. Whilst this assumption has simplified the task for writers and educators, it is increasingly being recognised that these techniques do not work in projects which may be described as complex (due to their size, technical difficulties, conflicting environmental and political constraints or poorly understood or shared goals). Tools for Complex Projects draws on research in the areas of project management, complexity theory and systems thinking to provide a ready reference for understanding and managing the increasing complexity of projects and programmes. The main part of the book provides a series of fourteen project tools. Some of these tools may be used at the level of the whole project life-cycle. Others may be applied ad hoc at any time. In each case, the authors provide: detailed guidelines for using the tool, information on its purpose and the types of complexity for which it is most appropriate, the theoretical background to the tool, a practical example of its use, and any necessary words of caution. This is an example of advanced project management at work; sophisticated tools that require a level of project and management expertise and offer rigorous and highly practical methods for understanding, structuring and managing the most complex of projects.

CHAPTER 1
What is a Complex Project?

Nearly all large and many small projects exhibit characteristics of complexity. Nevertheless projects of all sizes continue to be managed using linear thinking strategies based on project management traditions that go back to the building of the great pyramids in Egypt during the third millennium BCE, when societies and workgroups were arranged hierarchically. Much of the thinking dominating project management as it is currently practiced and taught is still founded upon control theories which were developed in the early modern period to deal with nineteenth- and twentieth-century industrialization and imperial expansion. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this. However, issues do arise when these ideas are applied unilaterally to all kinds of projects in all contexts.

In complex environments problems for management stem from the assumption that the outcomes, envisaged at the inception of the project, can be sufficiently determined early in the project and then delivered as planned. This approach to project management only works for a limited number of projects. Those projects tend to be rather small in scale and short in duration. However, once a project reaches a critical size, timeframe, level of ambiguity and interconnectedness, control-based approaches simply do not work for the entire project.

Several authors have recognized that projects are systems and should be addressed systemically. However the systemic view of the world presented is usually predicated upon what Peter Checkland (1981; 1999) refers to as ‘hard systems thinking’. This kind of thinking is highly appropriate for mechanical systems but not so useful when people are the key elements in the design, operation and delivery of the system. The problem is that people are unpredictable in their behaviour. We are self-determining, self-willed, self-motivated and selfish. We can disrupt the most carefully planned project simply by refusing to play, doing something entirely unpredictable or acting in what we consider to be in the best interests of the organization, the project or ourselves. The high numbers of major project failures being observed suggests that project methodologies founded on control systems thinking alone are not appropriate for many of today’s projects (Remington and Crawford, 2004; Williams, 1999; Baccarini, 1996). Projects are being subjected to numerous constraints, and project managers are expected to deliver outcomes in increasingly ambiguous and politically charged environments. In order to deliver satisfactory outcomes project managers need to adopt both a systemic and a pluralistic approach to practice.

A new approach to project management

‘Systemic pluralism’ is an approach that practitioners need to pursue if they are to survive and deliver successful project outcomes in complex contexts. Systemic pluralism requires two things from practitioners: that project managers recognize the systemic nature of projects; and that they adopt a pluralist approach to the tools and theories they apply. Systemic pluralism was developed as part of the systems field, under the banner of Critical Systems Thinking, a branch of systems thinking which emphasizes theoretical and methodological pluralism. Authors such as Midgley (1996; 2000), Mingers (1997; 2003) and Flood and Jackson (1991) all provide discussion on the development of Critical Systems Thinking and pluralist ideas in the systems, operational research and management science fields.

Management of most, if not all, projects can be aided by thinking of projects as systems. However, this does not mean the same thing to all people. Many different authors have placed different emphases on the systems concept, variously focusing on the attributes of open, closed, hard, soft, feedback and control systems. Although these different approaches all talk about systems, the different emphases they bring to the debate result in highly divergent forms of practice.

In this book we draw upon Complexity Theory, a cross-disciplinary branch of science which enquires into the nature of complex adaptive systems. Complexity Theory developed out of the observation of emergent, non-linear behaviour and particular sensitivity to initial conditions apparent in many natural systems. Its concepts have been developed through simulation and observation of complex behaviour in fields as diverse as biology, geology and meteorology. Lewin (1992) provides a good summary of the development of Complexity Theory. Ralph Stacey (1996) and others such as Griffin et al. (1999) and Lissack and Roos (1999) have applied ideas based on complex adaptive systems to general management. Complexity Theory also has considerable scope to provide insight into the systemic nature of projects.

Most projects can be more readily described as complex adaptive systems than as simple systems. In order to cope effectively with complex projects managers must adopt a pluralistic approach to practice. They must be able draw from a wide range of tools and ways of thinking to develop their own methods, their own patterns of practice, freely, according to the exigencies of the particular project. No one approach to project management is appropriate for all situations. There is no one size that fits all. Instead, project managers need to be equipped with a variety of different tools and ways of thinking about projects, a palette from which managers can pick and choose as the needs of the situation dictate. This is particularly true in environments characterised by confusion and transient conditions. Project managers should be able to select and vary the design of their methodologies or their approaches to managing different projects.

Complex projects vary dramatically, exhibiting different characteristics and aspects of systemicity. A single complex project may even demonstrate multiple kinds of systemicity, with various parts of the project showing markedly dissimilar characteristics and behaviour. Differences in systemicity will almost certainly vary considerably within any programme or group of interrelated projects.

Some projects can be described effectively as simple systems. For these projects the outcomes of the project might be so well defined that fully pre-determined control is possible. When this is the case traditional project management tools and processes are very efficient. However, in more complex contexts there will be aspects of the project for which control, in the sense of total predetermination of outcomes, is unlikely or even impossible to achieve. These parts of a project, or sub-projects, may benefit much more from approaches based on complex systems thinking. Faced with the pluralistic nature of the projects themselves, project managers have no choice but to adopt a pluralistic approach to practice. That means drawing flexibly and dynamically from a range of methods in order to deliver satisfactory outcomes to the stakeholders.

Aim of this book

This book is designed to assist practitioners to recognize the different sources of project complexity that might be confronted in a project context, as a guide to selecting the most appropriate management strategies. Based on the sources of complexity, we have defined various types of project complexity. We introduce whole-of-project approaches and individual tools that might assist practitioners to address different types of project complexity. The tools discussed in this book are not intended to be comprehensive. That would be impossible. In all cases it is the purpose behind the tool or approach, and the problem it is attempting to address, that are significant. Other tools can be selected if they fulfil the same purpose.

This book is a guide, not a step-by-step prescriptive methodology. Rather, it is a bag of tools and approaches from which managers can select in order to carry out the management activities needed for the project. The assumption is that the manager will make informed decisions about the most appropriate tools for the situation.

The focus is on tools and approaches which are not normally part of the project manager’s palette of techniques. More traditional project management tools may be referred to in this book but will not be covered in any detail. However, there is no intention to dismiss the use of traditional tools. Traditional project management techniques and processes are entirely appropriate and effective in situations where project objectives are clear, fully understood, agreed and relatively stable over time. Traditional project management methods and tools are comprehensively addressed elsewhere (see excellent coverage in Harrison, 2004; Pinto and Trailer, 1999; Turner, 1999; and many others).

A complex project is a complex adaptive system

Complexity Theory in the form that has been applied to organizations (Anderson, 1999) may also be applied to projects (Williams, 2002; Baccarini, 1996). All projects exhibit the attributes of interconnectedness, hierarchy, communication, control and emergence, attributes which are generally useful in describing all kinds of systems. Most large and many small projects also exhibit the characteristics of complex adaptive systems. They exhibit characteristics such as phase transition, adaptiveness and sensitivity to initial conditions. These latter characteristics can be understood through reference to Complexity Theory.

It is commonly accepted that systems thinking is a way of looking at the world. Systems concepts, and the idea of systems, are frameworks which we use to interpret the world. We use these concepts in response to our recognition of stable relationships between different entities. Systems concepts aid our understanding of the relationships between parts and wholes. Thinking in terms of systems is something we do naturally. We intuitively make sense of the world by recognizing patterns of interaction and feedback. This book provides a selection of practical tools and techniques to allow managers to apply systems thinking and the concepts developed within Complexity Theory deliberately and with conscious effect.

An example of a system at a primitive level involves our ancestors who might have recognized that certain plants can be gathered at certain times of the year, that the bison pass through the lower ranges around 20 days after the solstice, and that if we follow the migrating bison we will arrive at the junction of the rivers in time to eat the spawning fish. This is a stable, repeatable pattern or system. The system is about us finding food in a predictable way so that we can survive. We may not have understood why the system is stable or how the system fits into the greater ecosystem, but this does not prevent us from recognizing the relationships and taking advantage of them.

How we recognize systems and what is seen as a system is based on our points of view. Systems are based on stable relationships which must be recognized as existing and evolving over time. If there is no repeatable pattern, then we are looking at a single occurrence, not a system. When Douglas Adams’ character, the detective Dirk Gently, noticed ‘the interconnectedness of all things’ he was recognizing the systemic nature of his universe:

‘Whether we see a system in a situation is dependent upon what we are looking for at the time. For instance, most people are unlikely to perceive a simple pile of apples as a system. However, for very speci.c reasons, it may be useful to view this pile of apples as a system. If you were engaged by an apple producer to investigate the spread of a colony of bacteria in apple storage bins, thinking in terms of systems might be very useful. If you were an artist, and your intent and focus is the maintenance of a perfectly symmetrical pile of apples, then your focus changes again. Now, there is a perceived relationship between the apples and removing one apple fundamentally alters the properties of the pile of apples as a whole.’

Complex adaptive systems exhibit characteristics of all systems but it is the special additional characteristics that make them particularly difficult to understand and manage. Most authors agree that complex adaptive systems have the characteristics described as follows.

Characteristics of complex adaptive systems

HIERARCHY

Systems have sub-systems and are sub-systems for larger systems. This is often described as nested behaviour, like the Russian babushka dolls which fit one inside the other in seemingly endlessly diminishing replications.

In the same way, a chemist working on a drug development project is part of a project team. The interactions between the project team members can be considered to be a system. The team is one of many within a department, which can also be considered to be a system. The department is one of many within the organization, which is also a system. There are many organizations competing in this field, which together constitute another system.

Work breakdown structures are common ways of depicting a nested system of hierarchies, formally breaking down the activities in a project into manageable chunks. The project can be perceived at a number of levels, depending upon the focus of interest of the viewer.

COMMUNICATION

Information regarding the state of the system is passed between elements of a system. Information regarding the state of the system and the state of the environment is also passed across the system boundary. For example without anyone instructing them to do so, employees in an organization use the grapevine to rapidly communicate any changes to the organization that might affect them. Note however that rapidity and accuracy do not necessarily go together as anyone who has played the game Chinese whispers will agree. Projects have both formal and informal communications. The informal communications may both support and undermine the formal communications patterns.

CONTROL

Systems typically maintain the stability of the relationship between their parts, and so maintain their existence as a system. Control is what holds the system together. It maintains a stable state of operation. For example, a thermostat in the human body operates to maintain a comfortable body temperature by inducing sweating or shivering. In a workgroup, a congenial emotional climate and adherence to group norms are two of the conditions that hold the team together. If one team member does something to disturb this relationship other team members take action to re-establish the desired state of congeniality. Actions to control the behaviour and therefore maintain the system might be in the form of a joke, such as, ‘I think we need to include the cost of an alarm clock for Fred in the next budget’, which communicates acceptable group norms to a person who is habitually late for meetings. If the behaviour is allowed to escalate more serious control may be needed, such as exclusion of the member from the team.

EMERGENCE

At different levels of the system different properties emerge which may not be apparent from levels below. These properties are based on the stable interaction between different elements at a level of the system. Emergence is a property of the stable relationship between parts, not of any part in itself. In this respect the whole can be more than the sum of the parts. For example, when separated, the parts of a bicycle do not constitute a system of much interest. However, when combined, the capability of being able to be ridden emerges. This property only exists at the level of the whole bicycle but does not exist for any of the parts individually. It is a property which springs into being at a particular level of interaction with the system (see Dooley and Van de Ven, 1999).

PHASE TRANSITION

A complex adaptive system can suddenly take on a new form in response to changing conditions. It is the same system, just exhibiting different properties. This is usually an internal response to an external change. Descartes, in his Meditations, describes the transition of a piece of wax melting. When it melted he posed the question: How do we know is it the same piece of wax? It no longer looks the same. It doesn’t feel the same. Nonetheless science now tells us that it is the same system of atoms and molecules, just in a different phase state. This in turn creates different emergent properties, such as runniness instead of solidity.

Another example can be illustrated with respect to specialized work teams. When a navy vessel changes from general operating conditions to battle stations the interactions between the people and within individuals themselves go through a phase change. People start behaving differently to each other. However, the system is still stable. It is just responding to a different environmental constraint.

NON-LINEARITY

Non-linearity is caused by ‘positive feedback’ and induces change (see Daft and Lewin, 1990). This is in contrast with control, a process of ‘negative feedback’ for maintaining stability, like a thermostat.

For example, the 1960’s pop gro...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title page
• Dedication
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• Acknowledgements
• Preface
• Chapter 1 What is a Complex Project?
• Part I Types of Project Complexity: Character and Management
• Part II Tools and Techniques
• Index
• About the Authors