Advancing project stakeholders management by using structured dialogic design (SDD)

Share to0

Conference PaperStakeholder Engagement22 October 2011

Giotis, Theofanis

How to cite this article:

Giotis, T. (2011). Advancing project stakeholders management by using structured dialogic design (SDD) Paper presented at PMI® Global Congress 2011—North America, Dallas, TX. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.

A Guide to the Project Management body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide)--Fourth Edition states "Stakeholders are persons or organizations that are actively involved in the project, or whose interests may be positively or negatively affected by the performance or completion of the project" (PMI, 2008, p. 442). Also, stakeholder engagement, stakeholder management, and stakeholder decision making are continuous headaches for all project management team members. Most projects fail because of bad stakeholder management. According to KPMG (2005, p. 21), "unclear/change of scope requirements" is the number one reason for project failures. This means that some ingredients are missing from the recipe of stakeholder management. From the other riverside, the science of "structured dialogic design (SDD)" found its foundation in the 1970s and is a branch of systems sciences with applications in social sciences. SDD is a deeply reasoned, rigorously validated methodology for dialogic design, which integrates knowledge from mixed

Abstract

A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide – Fourth Edition) states: “Stakeholders are persons or organizations that are actively involved in the project, or whose interests may be positively or negatively affected by the performance or completion of the project!” (PMI, 2008, p. 442)

Also, stakeholder engagement, stakeholder management, and stakeholder decision-making, are continuous headaches for all project management team members. Most projects fail because of bad stakeholder management.

According to KPMG (2005, p 21), “unclear/change of scope requirements” is the number one reason for project failures. This means that some ingredients are missing from the recipe of stakeholder's management.

From the other riverside, the science of “structured dialogic design (SDD)” found its foundations in the 1970s, and is a branch of systems sciences with applications in social sciences. SDD is a deeply reasoned, rigorously validated methodology for dialogic design, which integrates knowledge from mixed participants in strategic design settings. SDD is based on: four axioms, six consensus building methods, seven language patterns, four stages of interactive inquiry, and seven laws of dialogue.

SDD encourages innovation and is very effective in resolving multiple conflicts of purpose and values and in generating consensus on organizational, inter-organizational strategy and projects.

Also, SDD efficiently enables democratic redesign of socio-organizational systems and practices based on a dialogic process that consolidates power relationships into consensus agreement for effective cross-functional collaborative action.

So, using SDD as a systemic tool, we can better manage project stakeholders. More specifically we can advance stakeholder engagement, stakeholder management, and stakeholder decision-making for improving project delivery results.

Background

Project success and failure is always related to stakeholders. Their requirements, perceptions, and expectations in the project context can make a project successful or failed. The PMBOK® Guide states that “Stakeholders are persons or organizations that are actively involved in the project, or whose interests may be positively or negatively affected by the performance or completion of the project!”

So, project stakeholder's management includes the processes required to identify all people or organizations impacted by the project, analyze stakeholder expectations and impact on the project and develop appropriate management strategies for effectively engaging stakeholders in project decisions and execution. Stakeholder's management also is focusing on the continuous dialog with stakeholders to meet their needs and expectations, address issues as they occur, and foster appropriate stakeholder engagement in project decisions and activities.

Every project, small or large, complex or simple, linear or non-linear, will have stakeholders who are impacted positively or negatively by the project outcome. While some stakeholders may have a limited ability to influence the project, others may have the power to directly or indirectly influence the project positively or negatively. The ability of the project manager to identify and manage these stakeholders in an appropriate manner can mean the difference between success and failure.

From the other side, the history of structured dialogic design (SDD) finds its foundations in the 1970s. It emerged as an application of systems sciences in social contexts, out of cybernetics, and the science of complex systems, especially in the sphere of social systems. SDD engages stakeholders in participative democracy through disciplined dialogue.

The science of SDD is a deeply reasoned, rigorously validated methodology for dialogic design, which integrates knowledge from mixed participants in strategic design settings. It is especially effective in resolving multiple conflicts of purpose and values and in generating consensus on organizational, inter-organizational strategy, and projects. It encourages innovation and prevents “spreadthink” and “groupthink” (Warfield, 1995). SDD efficiently enables democratic redesign of socio-organizational systems and practices based upon a dialogic process that consolidates power relationships into consensus agreement for effective cross-functional collaborative action.

The Structure of Structured Dialogic Design (SDD)

The SDD method is based on: four axioms, six consensus building methods, seven language patterns, four stages of interactive inquiry, and seven laws of dialogue.

The Four Axioms of SDD

(1) The Axiom of Complexity
We live in a world that is very complex. Most observers are confused. Systems design issues are strongly interconnected. Projects live in a bigger ecosystem. The Axiom of Complexity is attributed to John N. Warfield.

(2) The Axiom of Parsimony
Human cognition and attention is limited. Team members are usually overloaded in design meetings, which in turn lead to bad designs. The Axiom of Parsimony is attributed to Herbert Simon.

(3) The Axiom of Saliency
The field of options in designing social systems is multidimensional. Salient synthesis is difficult. The Axiom of Saliency is attributed to Kenneth E. Boulding.

(4) The Axiom of Engagement
Disregarding the participation of the stakeholders in designing social systems is unethical. The Axiom of Engagement is attributed to Hasan Ozbekhan.

The Seven Laws of SDD

The application of the science of SDD requires Facilitators of Dialogue to strictly comply with the following seven laws.

(1) Law of Requisite Variety

The Law of Requisite Variety demands that an appreciation of the diversity of perspectives and stakeholders is essential in managing complex situations. All stakeholders are welcomed to participate. The Law of Requisite Variety is attributed to William Ross Ashby.

(2) Law of Requisite Parsimony

The Law of Requisite Parsimony states that structured dialogue is needed to avoid the cognitive overload of stakeholders. The Law of Requisite Parsimony is attributed to George Miller and John Warfield.

(3) Law of Requisite Saliency

The Law of Requisite Saliency states that the relative saliency of observations can only be understood through comparisons within an organized set of observations. The Law of Requisite Saliency is attributed to Kenneth Boulding.

(4) Law of Requisite Meaning

The Law of Requisite Meaning states that meaning and wisdom are produced in a dialogue only when observers search for relationships of similarity, priority, influence, etc., within a set of observations. The Law of Requisite Meaning is attributed to Charles Sanders Peirce.

(5) Law of Requisite Autonomy and Authenticity

The Law of Requisite Autonomy and Authenticity in distinction-making demands that during the dialogue it is necessary to protect the autonomy and authenticity of each observer in drawing distinctions. The Law of Requisite Autonomy and Authenticity is attributed to Ioanna Tsivacou.

(6) Law of Requisite Evolution of Observations

The Law of Requisite Evolution of Observations states that learning occurs in a dialogue as the observers search for influence relationships among members of a set of observations. The Law of Requisite Evolution of Observations is attributed to Kevin Dye.

(7) Law Requisite Action

The Law Requisite Action predicts that any action plans to reform complex social systems designed without the authentic and true engagement of those whose futures will be influenced by the change are bound to fail. The Law of Requisite Variety is attributed to Yiannis Laouris.

The Six Methods to Build Consensus in SDD

Nominal Group Technique

Interpretive Structural Modelling

DELPHI Technique

Options Field

Options Profile

Trade-off Analysis

The Seven Patterns of Graphic Language in SDD

Elemental Observation

Problematique

Influence Tree

Options Field

Options Profile/Scenario

Superposition Pattern

Action Plan Pattern

The Four Stages of Interactive Inquiry in SDD

Definition or Anticipation

Design of Alternatives

Decision

Action Planning

What Do We Mean by Dialogue?

In project management, when the project management team deals with stakeholders, the team must talk to stakeholders. Stakeholders simply cannot be ignored. “If we don't find stakeholders, stakeholders will find us!

So, we must organize a dialogue. But what we mean by “dialogue”? Generally we mean the following:

Facilitated, structured verbal examination of problem area

Mixed-location, both collocated AND virtual

Committed participants seeking understanding and action

Stakeholders have diverging agendas and power differences

Cannot be easily solved by management decision

Complex problem or domain, unresolved by usual means

Risk or complexity requires discipline and structure

Dialogue is generative, constructs a shared outcome

Balances power and generates agreement based on quality

Dialogue is essentially democratic

Purposes and Uses of Structured Dialogue

Generally the purpose and use of structured dialogue is to:

Resolve issues among diverse stakeholders that affect project objectives

Democratic large-group decision-making with involved stakeholders

Policy design and decision-making

Complex problem solving

Strategic planning and effective priority setting

Portfolio and business asset allocation

Problem identification and root cause analysis

Of course, the main use of structured dialogue in project management is to have stakeholder agreement on major or minor project issues.

How Do We Conduct Dialogic Design to Engage Stakeholders

After the identification of stakeholders and stakeholder engagement, stakeholder decision making is a must follow process. Of course, engagement of stakeholders is the primary responsibility of the sponsor. But how the engaged stakeholders take decisions using SDD?

The model for structured dialogue is:

1) Define scope of inquiry, scope of participation

2) Divergent dialogue:

a. Selection of triggering question for involved stakeholders

b. Open-ended responses (NGT method)

c. Clarification of factors

3) Convergent dialogue:

a. Affinity clustering of responses

b. Voting paired relationships (ISM method)

4) Continue convergence toward design

5) Continue with action planning dialogue

The dialogue begins with the triggering question. All stakeholders must be involved in the process. The facilitator is the key person during the dialogue in order to get all the ideas about a specific issue and drive stakeholders to consensus.

Summary

Stakeholders are an integral part of project management. The earlier we locate stakeholders in any project, the easier to get their requirements and their expectations. But in many cases we have conflicting requirements from different stakeholders. How do we tackle these issues? Can we bring stakeholders to a consensus?

Structured dialogic design (SDD) is a deeply reasoned, rigorously validated methodology for dialogic design, which integrates knowledge from mixed participants in strategic design settings about projects.

So, using SDD as a systemic tool we can better manage project stakeholders. More specifically, we can advance stakeholder engagement, stakeholder management, and stakeholder decision-making for improving project delivery results.

References

Ashby, R. (1958). Requisite variety and its implications for the control of complex systems. Cybernetica, 1(2), 1–17.

Boulding, K. (1966). The impact of social sciences. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction 8(4), 293–332.

Christakis, A. N. (1973). A new policy science paradigm. Futures, 5(6), 543–558.

Christakis, A. N., & Bausch, K. (2006). How people harness their collective wisdom and power. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. http://www.harnessingcollectivewisdom.com

Christakis, A. N. (1996). A people science: The CogniScope system approach. Systems: Journal of Transdisciplinary Systems Sciences, 1(1), 16–19.

Dye, K. (1999). Dye's law of requisite evolution of observations. In A. N. Christakis & K. Bausch (Eds.), How people harness their collective wisdom and power (pp. 166–169). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Flanagan, T. R., Christakis, A. N. (2010). The talking point: Creating an environment for exploring complex meaning. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Janis, I. (1983). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

KPMG (2005) Global IT Project Management Survey: How committed are you? Retrieved from http://www.kpmg.com.au/Portals/0/irmpmqa-global-it-pm-survey2005.pdf

Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions, 1st ed., Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Laouris, Y., & Christakis, A. (2007). Harnessing collective wisdom at a fraction of the time using structured design process embedded within a virtual communication context. I International Journal of Applied Systemic Studies, 1(2), 131–153.

Laouris, Y., Laouri, R., & Christakis, A. (2008). Communication praxis for ethical accountability: The ethics of the tree of action: Dialogue and breaking down the Wall in Cyprus. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 25, 331–348.

Laouris, Y., Underwood, G., Laouri, R., & Christakis, A. (2010). Structured dialogue embedded within emerging technologies. In G. Veletsianos (Ed.), Emerging Technologies in Distance Education (Ch 8). Athabasca University Press.

Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limitations on our capacity for processing information. Psychology Review, 63, 81–97.

Ozbekhan, H. (1970). On some of the fundamental problems in planning. Technological Forecasting, 1(3), 235–240.

Romm, N. R. A. (2010). New racism: Revisiting researcher accountabilities. Springer.

Schreibman, V., & Christakis, A. (2007). New agora new geometry of languaging and new technology of democracy; the structured design dialogue process. International Journal of Applied Systemic Studies, 1(1), 15–31.

Tsivacou, I. (1997).The rationality of distinctions and the emergence of power: A critical systems perspective of power in organizations. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 14, 21–34.

Turrisi, P. A. (Ed.). (1997). Pragmatism as a principle and method of right thinking. New York: State University of New York Press.

Warfield, J. N. (1988).The magical number three, plus or minus zero. Cybernetics and Systems, 19, 339–358.

Warfield, J. N. (1995). Spreadthink: Explaining ineffective groups. Systems Research, 1(1), 5–14.

Warfield, J. N., & Cardenas, A. R. (1994). A handbook of interactive management. Iowa State University Press Ames.

Wasilewski, J. (2007). Dialogue for reconciliation and the management of complex issues: the co-evolution of MIID communities (multicentered, interlinked, inclusive, discursive communities). Peace Reports: ICU Peace Research Institute (PRI) Newsletter, 5(1), 3–4, 6.

Whyte Jr., W. H. (1952). Group think. Fortune, 45, 114–117, 145, 146.

© 2011, Theofanis Giotis, MSc, Ph.D. C., MCT, PMP®
Originally published as a part of 2011 PMI North America Global Congress Proceedings – Dallas, Texas USA

Like what you just read?

Log in or register for a free PMI account to get access 
to even more articles like this one.

Offer from our training partner

Advertisement

Offer from our training partner

Advertisement

Related Content

Offer from our training partner

Advertisement