Project Management in Extreme Situations

Lessons from Polar Expeditions, Military and Rescue Operations, and Wilderness Exploration

Monique Aubry, Pascal Lievre, Monique Aubry, Pascal Lievre

• Publisher: CRC Press
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN: 9781032477053
• eBook ISBN: 9781315356358
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Project Management
• Index: Business

The growing complexity of projects today, as well as the uncertainty inherent in innovative projects, is making obsolete traditional project management practices and procedures, which are based on the notion that much about a project is known at its start. The current high level of change and complexity confronting organizational leaders and managers requires a new approach to projects so they can be managed flexibly to embrace and exploit change. What once used to be considered extreme uncertainty is now the norm, and managing planned projects is being replaced by managing projects as they evolve.

Successfully managing projects in extreme situations, such as polar and military expeditions, shows how to manage successfully projects in today's turbulent environment. Executed under the harshest and most unpredictable conditions, these projects are great sources for learning about how to manage unexpected and unforeseen situations as they occur. This book presents multiple case studies of managing extreme events as they happened during polar, mountain climbing, military, and rescue expeditions.

A boat accident in the Artic is a lesson on how an effective project manager must be ambidextrous: on one hand able to follow plans and on the other hand able to abandon those plans when disaster strikes and improvise new ones in response. Polar expeditions also illustrate how a team can use "weak links" to go beyond its usual information network to acquire strategic information. Fire and rescues operations illustrate how one team member's knowledge can be transferred to the entire team. Military operations provide case material on how teams coordinate and make use of both individual and collective competencies.

This groundbreaking work pushes the definitions of a project and project management to reveal new insight that benefits researchers, academics, and the practitioners managing projects in today's challenging and uncertain times.

Part One

Polar Expeditions

Chapter 1

A Polar Expedition Project and Project Management*

Gilles Garel and Pascal Lièvre

This chapter pursues two objectives. First, it summarizes a project in which the authors participated, from the design stage to the final debriefing. The authors are, thus, both researchers and actors in the project. The project was a 2007 polar expedition by sea kayak along a section of the coast of Greenland. The expedition brought together four individuals who shared two kayaks and traveled in total autonomy over a distance of 150 km. Greenland, one of the world’s largest islands, is located northeast of Canada, spanning 60° to 88° latitude north from its southernmost tip to its northern extremity. This chapter refers to the undertaking as a “polar expedition project” with “exploration and discovery” objectives. It emphasizes that this project represents one among many possible forms of polar expeditions (Lièvre, Récopé, & Rix, 2003). The expedition was a success, in the sense that the team not only returned with a high degree of satisfaction, but also experienced satisfaction throughout the project’s realization. Although the project was a success, it encountered critical events along the way. The project summary draws on concepts developed by Bruno Latour (2005). These concepts are the basis for the descriptions of forms of socio-technical integration observed in the course of the project, which ultimately led the authors to tackle the question of how collective action was made possible. The summary constitutes the chapter’s first objective. The second is to use the specific experience of the project to extrapolate conclusions for project management more broadly, including conclusions on team formation and the relationship between preparation and action, as well as to derive cognitive insights into knowledge management. The analysis of a specific experience can contribute to broader knowledge. By the same token, the study of expedition projects can contribute to project management research.

From a methodological standpoint, the use of a single case is justified, according to Yin (1981), when representing extreme situations—Greenland is extreme, both in its remoteness relative to other project locations cited in the relevant literature and in its environmental conditions—examining situations that had not been accessible previously to the research community (to the authors’ knowledge, no other management researchers have organized and analyzed this type of project) or tested a theory. A deductive researcher works according to a logic that must either substantiate or contradict hypotheses derived from theory. A researcher’s relationship with fieldwork is often indirect and mediated, by statistical instruments, for example. However, a project can be studied from within as well. An inductive researcher observes facts in practice in order to elaborate a theory progressively. This was our course of action. We embarked on an expedition—and we became, for this chapter, researchers.

In what way is a polar expedition a project? A degree of ambiguity undoubtedly surrounds its output. The development of new goods or services would surely constitute a relevant object of analysis for project management researchers. But what of a sea kayak expedition along the coast of Greenland? What was this project’s deliverable? Both the intangible character of the output and the absence of a research dimension to the project (the team did not carry out any experiments in situ and pursued no other objective than returning to base camp) suggest that it was “recreational” in character. Yet is it possible to view the expedition members’ memories, the “good times” spent together, as recognizable output? In other words, was this a “real” project? A polar expedition certainly does incorporate all the characteristics of a project, from the initial stages of preparation, through the expedition proper, to post-project capitalization. Conceptually, such an expedition exhibits all the attributes of a project as Midler (1996) defines the term, as Garel and Lièvre (2010) have shown, and as this book’s conclusion reiterates.

The first section of the present chapter structures its discussion of the project around Latour’s (2005) notion of controversy. The second section explores the conceptual and managerial insights deriving from the project.

1.1. The Expedition Project in the Light of Bruno Latour’s Thought

The expedition began as a project among friends, without any thought to potential research goals. It was initially no more than a desire to travel together, to experience the polar world, in just a pair of sea kayaks. The plan included no major undertaking: The aim was a basic, quintessential sea kayaking excursion that would cover 150 km in total autonomy along the coast of Greenland from Ilulissat to Port Victor. The excursion had no other goals than to gain personal knowledge as an autonomous team completing a project, from the first embryonic idea through its realization. And in the aftermath of this short adventure (one year of preparation, 15 days of kayaking, financial closure and project review three months later) the team realized a “unanimous” and “strong” sense of satisfaction. In short, we aimed at a personal project for pleasure. Yet we quickly came to ask ourselves why we had felt such a high degree of satisfaction with this project. Perhaps, we wondered, the appreciation we felt for the project’s qualities signaled that it could serve as an exemplary case study or, at the very least, that its examination could yield managerial, and perhaps personal, insight. In describing the expedition, we rely on the conceptual framework developed by Bruno Latour*: Actors, objects, places, and controversies are the components through which we examine combinations of human and nonhuman elements to shed light on the conditions that make a specific collective initiative possible.

1.1.1. Actors and Objects

Actors^†

There were four principal actors, as well as one important secondary one. They were Paul, the perfectionist sailor; Pierre, the philosophical handyman; Joëlle, the outdoors sportswoman; and Philippe, the polar adventurer. The group of actors also included Bruno, the travel agent, who played an essential role, since it was he who was commissioned to arrange our flight tickets, boat transportation to base camp, and all equipment necessary for sea kayak travel.

Objects and Places

The project involved close to a dozen nonhuman elements, physical objects, skills, management tools, and places, each playing a significant role over the course of the expedition and whose absence would have considerably affected the development of the collective initiative. During the expedition, we needed to make difficult choices.

Let us begin with our means of transportation—the Nautiraid—a collapsible softshell sea kayak originally developed for use by special military units. The particularities of the craft include its weight (40 kg), volume (equivalent to two large backpacks), and the fact that it can be quickly assembled and disassembled at any time. Philippe had long wished to use this type of craft, which makes it possible to carry out long excursions in polar regions during the summer, when climate conditions make it impossible to trek using skis and a pulk (i.e., a supply sled). Such summertime kayak excursions complement springtime treks for many polar expedition aficionados. Philippe had purchased a used two-seat Nautiraid brand kayak in the Grand Raid series. The model measured 5.30 m in length and could carry up to 350 kg of weight. Although this model is less efficient in terms of speed (it is capable of only half the speed of hardshell kayaks), it is highly reliable and easily repaired. It is also possible to mount a sail on the craft. Vessels of this type have successfully completed transatlantic crossings.

A second object playing an important role was treaded footwear. The black rubber boots we selected had deeply treaded soles that were adapted to travel over slippery, unstable ground; they are otherwise known as “caving” boots. At first, a significant discussion emerged among the team members as to the type of footwear to bring on the expedition. Our common backgrounds and experienced team members’ opinions led us toward this type of foot protection; this proved a happy choice in the course of the expedition. The imperative was to keep our feet dry while embarking and disembarking from the kayaks, but without impairing the ability to walk safely over muddy terrain and wet rocks. In short, professional speleology boots were the ideal solution.

The style of drysuit to choose was also a matter of extensive discussion, in addition to providing moments of lighthearted diversion during fitting sessions with vendors. We finally opted for GoreTex suits, which combined good water-proofing with good aeration.

Philippe and Joëlle’s family home served as headquarters for our expedition preparations. Our management tools included an equipment checklist, a list of necessary foodstuffs, and an expedition plan compiled using Excel software, which allowed us to make use of data collected in various situations over a number of years. A journal kept by a guide during a previous expedition, whose trajectory closely resembled ours, proved an invaluable source of information during the preparation stage and throughout the expedition’s duration.

1.1.2. Controversies

We identified two important controversies that occurred during the course of the expedition. The first arose during the preliminary stages of project construction. The second occurred in the field, immediately following a crisis situation for the team, and involved choosing one of diverse scenarios for the journey toward our return flight.

Controversy #1: Project Construction

Philippe proposed that the expedition be a sea kayaking trip in the gulf of the Saint Lawrence River, where we could navigate alongside whales, which he felt would provide a good balance between his lack of experience in a sea kayak and the other three team members’ lack of experience in polar regions. Aware that Philippe had previously driven along the banks of the Saint Lawrence and had paddled on the waterway on that occasion, Paul favored exploring more northern regions in order to make full use of Philippe’s polar experience and in order to attempt something he would not have tried without the rest of the group. After reflection, Philippe proposed Greenland. The solution of a Greenland expedition satisfied the desires of both: for Philippe and Joëlle it would provide the opportunity to acquaint themselves with sea kayaking, for Paul and Pierre it would be a voyage of discovery to the far north. In addition, Greenland is easily accessible and provides all necessary logistics on site, and, what is more, Philippe had carried out expeditions in the region on three previous occasions.

Controversy #2: Return Scenarios

Eight days into the expedition, the team was caught in a swelling sea, when wind speed increased dramatically in the course of an hour. We found ourselves in a perilous situation, 2 km from shore, where we were running a high risk of capsizing into water no warmer than 2–5°C. We fought the waves for an hour before coming noticeably closer to shore. Running aground on the beach, we quickly sheltered the boats from the wind and the rolling waves. The sea was high. Wind gusts reached 70–80 km/h, while waves crested at 80–100 cm. The team searched for a place to camp, finding a suitable location in the proximity of a river. Philippe was resigned to dispense with traveling by kayak for the remainder of the expedition if the weather conditions did not improve. He gave serious consideration to building sleds and returning on foot through the valleys. Tension within the group was high. Paul felt that a trek on foot was a bad idea; he saw no reason why we should not return with the kayaks. Philippe considered yet another possibility: Perhaps a boat could pick us up and bring us to the return point. Pierre was uncomfortable with the idea of a “supervised” return, which would invalidate the project’s autonomy. We knew also that another expedition was nearby and were to leave on Friday evening. We considered leaving the kayaks with them and making our return on foot. Philippe stated his case resolutely, map in hand: An autonomous return trip on foot was possible, and he was certain he could arrive at the return point by Friday evening. The following day, Wednesday, August 1, the weather remained unchanged; and although the meteorological prognosis called for a slight improvement, Philippe remained skeptical. Paul and Pierre went for a walk; on their return, the team decided to visit the “birds’ cliff” together. Once there, we encountered the other expedition group and discussed the weather conditions with their guide. In confidence, he told us that, were he alone, he would brave the waters by kayak; but having a group under his supervision, he preferred to wait out the stormy weather. Around 5 p.m. the wind began to die down. Paul was ready to set off. Philippe did not agree, reasoning that we needed three hours to break camp, in addition to the time needed to eat and rest. He suggested waiting until the next morning to decide on a course of action. The next morning, the wind had abated. We took to the kayaks once again for a full day of paddling that would cover 40 km. We arrived at camp at 10 p.m., exhausted.

1.2. The Expedition Experience and Insights for Project Management

In this section, we examine certain characteristics of our expedition project that intersect with themes analyzed in project management literature and constitute factors of learning for future expedition projects. We focus on three elements.

1.2.1. Team Formation: Prototyping Potential Situations and Managing Expectations

Mutual affinity, trust, and respect were already present among three of the four expedition members, who knew each other before the project began, although they had never undertaken an expedition together. The fourth team member, Pierre, was the most recent addition to the group, through his friendship with Paul, who was,...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• Foreword
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• About the Authors
• Introduction: Blowing Hot and Cold on Project Management
• Part One – Polar Expeditions
• Part Two – Extreme Situations
• Part Three – Lessons to Be Learned
• Conclusion
• Epilog
• Afterword: Looking for the Ordinary in the Extraordinary!
• Index