Managing Projects

A Very Brief Introduction

Stefan Kühl

• Publisher: Organizational Dialogue Press
• Year: 2018
• eBook ISBN: 9780999147993
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Scienze sociali
• Subtopic: Sociologia

The linear, goal-oriented approach to projects that is so popular in management literature is only appropriate if you are dealing with well-defined problems. For projects that address poorlydefined problems, however, the principles of classic project management don’t work; project managers attempt in vain to maintain a linear approach, even if targets, people affected andframework conditions cannot be determined precisely. We propose a fundamentally different approach based on current organizational theory: to start out with experiments, without predetermined conclusions. Projects are not evaluated by comparing the current status to the target, but rather by assessing whether stagnation has been overcome, conflicts putaside, and shared understanding about new opportunities has been created. Project groups and steering committees are not set up at all. Power “games” are harnessed and put to use, rather thanprohibited.

1. What Is a Project? A Proposed Definition and Classification

The idea of a project has been applied to a wide range of things. Couples define the conception and rearing of children as a joint project meant to give their relationship meaning. Hardware stores encourage their customers to “say it with your project,” to express their personality by building a new deck in the backyard for grill parties, or to install a new luxurious clawfoot bath tub. Groups of revolutionaries understand their terror attacks as a project meant to change society; it is therefore only logical that the German terrorist group, the Red Army Faction, announced the “end of their urban guerilla project” in 1988 because “this path was not effective in the end.” And even Joseph Stalin’s idea of doing away with classes by “eliminating non-affiliated or obsolescent classes” has been described by critical observers as one of the “most grandiose projects in world history”.

We are not just playing here with the semantic subtleties of the concept of a project; projects are being used, as a structural form, in many different fields of society. In the economy, working on projects that only exist for a specific amount of time has become so important that some believe work in classical organizations is losing its importance. In scholarship, working in research projects has become such a commonplace that some scholars believe that projects are the royal road of the search for truth. In politics, we can see that increasing numbers of citizens may be withdrawing from long-term work in political parties, yet can still be mobilized quickly for projects such as building a bypass road, preventing the construction of public transportation, or blockading international trade agreements. In the context of religion, believers are increasingly turning away from religious organizations and toward project-related religious practice, for example in revival events or religiously themed charity work. Indeed, in the face of such trends, it seems entirely plausible to speak of an increasing “projectification” of society.

But what exactly do we mean when we say project? What characterizes the structural form of a project, which is ostensibly moving forward in society?

1.1 Projects—A Definition

From the perspective of organizational research informed by systems theory, a project is defined as a goal program that should only be performed once. For example, think of the construction of a dam to generate electricity and provide irrigation; the penetration of a new market for rapid transit; the construction of a production facility for computer chips; the creation of a television series; the development of a pharmaceutical product; the preparation of a merger of two universities, or the restructuring of a department.

This definition of projects as one-off goal programs makes it possible to consider projects within the context of a foundational understanding of organizational structure. In systems theory research on organizations, we draw distinctions between three different kinds of organizational structures, or to put it more precisely, premises for decisions (Luhmann 2003). The first set of premises are an organization’s programs, meaning the decisions regarding if-then programs or objectives through which a member can tell whether he or she has acted properly or improperly. The second set are the communication channels, meaning the rights of co-determination, hierarchical authorization to make decisions, and project networks through which communications are governed within the organization. The third type of decisions are those that deal with personnel. This understanding of people as a structural feature of organizations may be surprising at first glance, yet it illuminates the fact that staff changes often lead to other decisions, even if communication channels and programs do not change.

The Programmatic Character of Projects

Goal programs—meaning the structural typology relevant to projects—determine which ends or objectives are to be attained. The choice of the means that should be applied to reach the goals or ends remains free within certain limits. Conditional programs, however, are constructed in an entirely different way. They specify what must be done if an organization receives a particular stimulus. Conditional programs therefore have a fixed connection between the condition of an action—the “if”—and the execution of the decision—the “then.” The approach is specified with precision: the program determines what must be done—and also implies that whatever is not expressly permitted by the program is prohibited (Luhmann 2003).

Goal programs necessarily entail a reference to time. A goal program to build a municipal airport without a deadline would be destined for failure. It wouldn’t even be possible to determine whether the objective was met because the contractors could simply say that they need a bit more time. This would perhaps relieve the responsible parties of their obligations, yet it would run completely counter to the meaning of a goal program. The advantage of programs with a time limit is that it becomes possible, at some point in time prescribed in advance, to determine whether “the objectives have been met or not.” The project ends when the objectives are attained or missed (Luhmann 1992, 613).

Even if every project is a more or less discrete goal program, not every goal program can be understood as a project. Goal programs include the installation of a new electrical connection, decisions about the daily menu in a restaurant, or editing a book in a publishing house. Despite the willy-nilly application of the term “project,” you would be probably make yourself the laughingstock of your organization if you described the standard laying of an electrical connection, the crafting of today’s menu, or the improvement of an author’s book as a project.

Goal programs that, as Herbert A. Simon said, approach “well-defined problems,” are something that we would probably not call a project. For well-defined problems, the stakeholders involved all agree on the definition of the problem, and it is possible to acquire all of the necessary information about the problem. This enables effective advance programming of task fulfillment (Simon 1997, 128). Sometimes these well-defined problems can be addressed with a conditional program; for example, when adding a new employee to the telephone directory, we use the alphabet and a set of rules to know where to add them. Sometimes, these problems can be treated with simple goal programs for which three or four means are available to choose from.

Consequently, goal programs can be defined as projects only if they address poorly defined problems and if their solutions typically cannot be used repeatedly. We call a problem poorly defined when we only have limited information about its structure, when interpretations of it differ from person to person, and when it is complex enough that it is impossible to weigh all of the alternative solutions and assess their consequences. These kinds of poorly defined problems include for example reorganization projects that have unclear goals or are changed during the project, or complex IT projects that often wind up delivering something other than what was specified in the requirements.

Integrating Projects into Communication Channels

If a goal program has been established to solve a poorly defined problem, then discussions begin within organizations about who is responsible for accomplishing the program. People talk about “creating project structures,” “establishing a project architecture,” or “setting up project committees.” In systems theory, we would say that the project is being integrated into an organization’s communication channels. The establishment of communication channels determines how and through what channels official communication in the organization is supposed to travel. By setting up legitimate points of contact, methods of procedure, and responsibilities, the possibilities for communication in the organization are substantially restricted. A large number of possible contacts are put aside, and only a small number of legitimated contacts and decision-making authorities are permitted. Hierarchies and rights of co-determination can be combined in such a way that completely unique communication forms and networks develop.

Projects in organizations are always integrated in some form into the communication channels—and therefore the hierarchy—within an organization. Although people may avoid establishing a project hierarchy within project groups, these groups themselves are enmeshed within the hierarchically arranged communication channels inside an organization. Even in cases in which a project group reports directly to a chairman of the board or a president, it is still integrated into the organization’s hierarchy, namely by its direct subordination to the organization’s uppermost position. The idea that project work is somehow evidence of a crisis or a harbinger of the end of hierarchies in organizations is naive. In the final analysis, there is hardly a better instrument available for the regulation of non-hierarchical forms of coordination than hierarchy (Kühl 2017).

Depending on the prominence of the projects, completely different forms of organizations can develop. Sometimes an organization is founded for the sole purpose of completing a major project. This was the case for project organizations founded for construction projects such as the Stockholm Globe Arena, the Elbphilharmonie concert hall in Hamburg, or Terminal 5 at London Heathrow airport. These project organizations were set up for bids for the Olympic Games, hosting world championships, or organizations for introducing complex development projects, such as introducing a toll system to a country’s roads.

In other cases, the core activity of an organizati...

Table of contents

• Stefan Kühl
• Imprint
• Contents
• Preface—Managing Projects beyond the Model of the Organization as Machine
• 1. What Is a Project? A Proposed Definition and Classification
• 2. The Charm and the Limits of Instrumental Rationality in Project Management
• 3. Project Management beyond Instrumental-Rational Restrictions
• 4. Limits and Opportunities for Management of Projects Addressing Poorly Defined Problems
• Bibliography