Catch me if you can … in your project!

Abstract

Feasibility study, decision to do the project, project assignment, project charter… and the project starts. However, starting a project doesn't mean that all doors will be opened. It doesn't mean that we, as project managers, have the stakeholders’ buy-in. Most of the time, getting our (major) stakeholders on board seems like mission impossible. We don't have simple recipes or standard steps to sell our project to the organization. But we do have one general project management advantage: Project management is everywhere, in every domain. So it can benefit from the long-proven theories in traditional domains (like physics, medicine, etc.) and it can use their efforts for evolution to solve its most sensitive issues. We are going to show in this paper how to do so and which major known principles can be applied in order to. catch our stakeholders in our projects.

“Project”: Concept Transformation

A new paper on medicine or technology usually dedicates its first chapter to evolution. Considered as traditional sciences, they imposed a specific approach: in order to prepare a professional, well-documented paper, the author(s) have to mention all progress related to the subject. Most of the time, their demonstrations are based on previous work on the subject. This is actually what scientists call evolution.

Based on different size discoveries or changes, evolution is the basic “tool” for development in traditional historical sciences. For “newcomers”—like project management—the situation is different. Concepts don't have years of analysis and usage. Standards are not perfectly aligned, and debate rises in many situations. Practitioners and students don't expect spectacular discoveries, but they do expect change and evolution.

But, in our opinion, project management evolution cannot find its roots so easily in the previous work. The only way to progress in this case is transformation. Everything—methods, definitions, roles—gets new, powerful meanings using this transformation. Moreover, the initial concept of “project” is suffering a specific transformation related to the evolution of each field.

Several years ago, at the beginning of project management, organizing work based on projects was considered as auxiliary help. Nowadays, almost every domain wants to benefit from the power of project management and it tries to organize its development accordingly. There is a bidirectional relationship between project (management) transformation and other domains’ evolution. We can illustrate this idea, which will be one the main ideas of our demonstration, in a more structured manner: domains’ (medicine, construction, IT&C, etc.) evolution requires project management transformation, while project management's transformation either imposes or helps (in many cases) domains’ evolution. In support of this idea, one just needs to acknowledge how many researches and developments are organized as projects. At the same time, looking at examples from project management standards (like PMBOK or Prince2), it's easy to see that their transformation was deeply influenced by all of those findings from research and development projects.

In fact, looking at the nature of projects, it is safe to say that projects can no longer be perceived as complex systems. Transformation determined a new approach/organization: projects as organic, complex, adaptive systems. We need to elaborate a little on this matter, as we will use specific characteristics later in the paper.

A complex system is a system composed of interconnected elements that can exhibit more powerful characteristics/properties as a whole than they can as individual elements (Mitleton-Kelly, 2003). According to complex systems theory (which was developed in mathematics), there is disorganized complexity and organized complexity. Since project management is also about rules and principles, we can consider that projects are organized, complex systems.

Ten years ago, such an approach was perfect. Interconnecting parts based on specific initial rules was more than enough in order to obtain a project organization. The advantages were clear: All the parts linked exhibited emergent and interesting characteristics, which helped a lot in reaching objectives.

But, considering overall evolution, this kind of approach failed to comply with new requests. All elements addressed by projects became more and more complex and difficult to manage. Moreover, changes (at all levels) appear more quickly and dynamically now than they did several years ago. In our opinion, we all need adaptation. We all need projects to be organized, complex, adaptive systems.

Adaptation is absolutely necessary, keeping in mind the complex situations and the myriad facets that a project needs to address. For example, research projects in medicine must manage interactions with other complex domains (like engineering or electronics). Relations between the multi-domain parts are bidirectional, influencing each other and requiring deep analysis and management. Adaptive capacity will prove decisive in the face of different perturbations. Communication and cooperation take place at all levels, contributing to an increased variance but keeping the original thread (the method).

Still, in our opinion, this approach (organized, complex, adaptive systems) for projects will no longer sufficiently cover all mandatory situations. The changing process is becoming too complex and too dynamic and it must be managed accordingly. There are different orders of changes and many identity dimensions addressed. Adaptation (as presented previously) might not supply sufficient tools and principles to handle (for example) a radical, new positioning (as an organizational change). In this case, we propose a specific model related to systemic approach: the organic (adaptive) model.

Practically speaking, the project will be able to adapt to environmental changes and keep up the pace with evolutionary changes in impacted domains. According to Goldstein and Kelly (1994), for complex, adaptive organizations (related to complex systems), there are some design principles that must be followed:

a. Create a shared purpose.

b. Cultivate inquiry, learning, experimentation, and divergent thinking.

c. Enhance external and internal interconnections via communication and technology.

d. Instill rapid feedback loops for self-reference and self-control.

e. Cultivate diversity, specialization, differentiation, and integration.

f. Create shared values and principles of action.

g. Make explicit a few but essential structural and behavioral boundaries.

Adding the fact that organic structures can adapt and evolve according to the purpose, our recommendation is to consider projects as organic, complex, adaptive systems (organic CASs).

The traditional structure of organic CASs presumes a distribution of power. Each element (part) of the project (system) is invested with power so that it could deal with potential changes in a more effective way. Waiting for a centralized response without any contribution from every part might induce a big latency and a slow response to rapidly changing environments.

Each important element (part) of the project has its own complex organization and “knows” its principles of functioning. This is the “organized complexity” characteristic. Distributing the power (in an organic way) will add flexibility and contribute to a fast adaption of the whole project. This is why organic CAS organization is the best approach for projects.

This transformation of the overall project concept induces a transformation in all related major concepts: project management and project manager.

Project Management as Adaptive Leadership

CASs contain different parts (agents) that have to interact in a dynamic way. All of these interactions presume exchange of information and contribution to the overall puzzle. In science, complex systems operate far from equilibrium conditions, and a constant flow of energy is required to maintain the organization of the system (Mitleton-Kelly, 2003). For projects, this energy is represented by the project management (flow).

Projects (as CASs) cannot achieve perfect equilibrium at any point in time. There are many important dimensions (constraints) in a project. In addition to the traditional triple constraint (time, scope, cost), experts have suggested that other constraints be considered: risks, quality, customer satisfaction, changes, etc. We will not discuss these dimensions here. The main idea is that no matter how many dimensions one chooses to monitor on a project, one will not be able to reach a perfect equilibrium between them.

Moreover, if we list some other principles of CASs, it is obvious that the project management role is critical and the whole project as a temporary organization depends and relies on it. We have selected only a few of the characteristics, which will help us in the next part of the demonstration. According to Cilliers (1998), CASs are characterized by the following:

• Interactions occur primarily but not exclusively with immediate neighbors.
• All complex systems evolve, and their past is co-responsible for their present behavior.
• The interactions are non-linear, which means that small causes can have large results.
• Any element in the system is affected by and affects several other systems.
• Elements in the system are ignorant of the behavior of the system as a whole, responding only to what is available to them locally.

Just looking at the above characteristics and placing them in a project context, our feeling is that traditional project management might not be enough anymore. Non-linear interactions between elements of a project, small causes bringing large results, influences from and to other systems, etc.—all of them require more than traditional waterfall project management. We need evolution/progress, and this is possible only by transformation.

More specifically, project management should be built on leadership characteristics. When you consider projects to be organic and organized CASs, plain leadership might prove insufficient in the areas of flexibility and power. We actually recommend and sustain adaptive leadership as a main component for (transformed) project management.

The concept of adaptive leadership in organizations is relatively young but not new. The interesting fact is that this concept is also linked with organizations as complex, adaptive systems. The main components for adaptive leadership (an evolution from traditional leadership) are well-suited for our transformed project management:

• Focus on value-added deliverables
• Flexibility for roles in organization: broader rules and descriptions; people are expected to substitute for one another
• Networking is strongly encouraged
• Different mindset: more focused on “can do” than on “must do”
• Structure of organization is more flat and lean, assuring higher flexibility and responsiveness
• Changes in organization are encouraged and easy to implement
• Greater power is awarded to people strong enough to influence whole organization and work
• Internal departments are considered “clients,” bringing more responsibility to the team
• Innovation and achievements are highly encouraged and rewarded

Projects as organic CASs are dynamic and complex and not easy to manage. But by using our recommendation (project management based on adaptive leadership), the situation is simplified and becomes more rewarding. The project manager has many tools at his or her disposal to run projects. Still, there is a great deal of pressure on him or her, and different skills are required.

Project Manager: A Leader for the Project

Narrowing down the “circle,” we reach the most important transformation: the one of the project manager. Project management is a core competency that, in many cases, can prove to be a competitive advantage for the organization. We are all aware of its importance. Project management is influencing every domain by bringing new ways of planning, monitoring, and delivering. Furthermore, it has become a key element in the development of society. And building project management on adaptive leadership increases overall influence on the systems (projects).

Consequently, the project manager has earn his or hers key role in the evolution of the society, along with other “traditional” ones (doctors, lawyers, etc.). Social and personal competencies must be part of the new project manager personality. There is a need to have an efficient equilibrium between technical and soft skills, between leadership and management skills. Acting as a leader (in adaptive leadership) requires several skills from the project manager, including:

• Proactivity and creativity to obtain different options for next steps
• Willingness to take risks and experiment
• Openness to new and innovative ideas
• Willingness to admit own mistakes and cope with divergent views
• Capability of influencing whole organization
• “Helicopter view” approach with ability to dive into major subjects of the project

Beyond all of these obvious requirements, we must witness a deeper change (transformation) for project managers. We all should become new project managers.

The New Project Manager

Generally, the shop windows follow the same principles. The front row is full of attractive and (almost always) expensive products. The next row includes products that are already well-known but still attract buyers. And, at the end, if there is still enough space, somewhere lost in the back we have the “Cinderellas”—products that contribute to the wellbeing of the store but cannot be considered as representative of or defining for the image of the store.

For a company—such as the recruitment companies—the shop window itself becomes a virtual one (online or in print) but without losing the same organizing principles presented above. The premium offers (although hardly accessible) will always top the bill. The recruitment of a senior manager will always be a priority over the recruitment of an engineer, although the critical mass of applicants is made up of mainly engineers. Still, the business interests claim this settlement, which is apparently atypical.

For the role of project manager, the back rows were a tradition in previous years. With very few exceptions, the position of project manager was left in the “others” category. It didn't have the glamour and attraction of other positions. It did not imply managing a department, despite having “manager” in the title. On the contrary, a project manager role left the impression of a simple employee. It didn't have a spectacular “work object”—“project” seemed a rather generic and very confusing term. Moreover, it needed plenty of technical expertise without any relation to the management of the projects. The last row of the “shop window” seemed rather too much for such a role.

But things have changed step by step. We have all witnessed a transformation of the whole concept of the project. The vague and unconvincing term has received new valences. Together with it, project management has been approached in a much more elaborated manner. But the role of the project manager has undergone the most important transformation. The requirements have changed and the range of necessary skills is almost completely new. We can say that we already have a new project manager.

Here are the main changes in this transformation:

• The project manager used to be seen as an administrator of the resources engaged in a project (material or human). In light of the new projects, the new project manager receives managerial tasks related to them. But responsibilities increase, as does their formal power.
• For the position of project manager, the main requirements were derived from the area of technical expertise from the implementation area of that project. But lately, the focus has moved, as it should have, to the qualities typical of managing projects. Most importantly, the new project manager must be an expert in project management.
• Under better circumstances, the project manager was a member of a project management department, most often seen as a support department. The change is very deep: The new project manager becomes a member of a community of project managers, focused on sharing good practices and on continuous professional and personal development.
• In the past, the interpersonal skills of a project manager were optional requirements. Furthermore, they used to focus on what we call “communication skills.” Taking into account all the previous changes, the new project manager must have a complete and developed set of personal and interpersonal skills. And here we can enumerate leadership, openness, relaxation, perseverance, tenacity, creativity, orientation towards results, and many others.

The transformation is obvious, but it is not finished. It is important that, together with this basic transformation, there is also a change in perception. The role of a project manager is considered as part of the premium offers (in the recruitment area). Its importance is greater and greater, and most of the companies always request such a role in their critical activities.

Or, going back to the starting point, the virtual shop window of professions has a new offer in the first row: the (new) project manager!

Adaptive Leadership: Empowering Stakeholders

Before adaptive leadership in project management, there was only stakeholders’ management. The project manager had to identify stakeholders, separate them into different categories, and communicate with them (more seldom or more often, depending on their importance). However, as we mentioned previously, all elements addressed by projects became more and more complex and difficult to manage. Changes (at all levels) appear more quickly and dynamically now than they did several years ago. Adaptation might not supply sufficient tools and principles to handle a radical, new positioning (as an organizational change). In this case, we proposed a specific model, related to systemic approach: the organic, complex, adaptive model (CAM).

The formal structure of the organic CAM presumes a distribution of power. Each element (part) of the project (system) is invested with power so that it could deal with potential changes in a more effective way. Waiting for a centralized response without a contribution from every part might induce a big latency and a slow response to rapidly changing environments. This has a great impact on the way the new project manager should deal with the “stakeholders’” part. As identified in A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK^® Guide) – Fifth Edition, stakeholders’ management is more than “management.” It should also include engagement.

Considering the project as an organic CAM, we go a little further and say that for our project stakeholders, engagement should be actually empowering. As project managers, we have to invest our stakeholders with power. This way, they will be able to support the project more anddeal more easily with the unavoidable and omnipresent changes that could affect the project. Distributed power will increase project sustainability, making it more adaptive to environmental changes so more prone to success.

But, how do we empower in such a way that we, the project managers, still retain control and don't bring anarchy/chaos into our project?

It's a general psychological rule that people accept the power they are invested with if they already gave their buy-in. In other words, we, as project managers, need to present/show/explain our project (scope, objectives, motivation, etc.) to our stakeholders in such a manner that, in the end, we obtain their buy-in. Consequently, they will believe that project success will be achieved only with us as project managers in the lead and, therefore, for this purpose, they will use the power received in a constructive way.

Based on our experience, the critical factor in getting stakeholders’ buy-in is transparency. They should have access to all major aspects of the project, starting from initiation until closing. In order to achieve this, we propose a two-step approach:

Personal Approach: Inward and Outward

In order to have transparency in the project, first of all, we, the project managers, should be transparent. We should overcome our (natural) resistance to this idea and be as transparent as possible, especially when it comes to us. For this, we can use and develop for ourselves several soft skills: relaxation, ethics, openness, values appreciation, self-control, assertiveness, and creativity (IPMA, 2008). This is the inward part of the personal approach.

Second of all, we should act in a transparent manner and promote transparency among our stakeholders. This is the outward part and it should be based on soft skills like: results-orientation, engagement and motivation, leadership, efficiency, consultation and negotiation, management of conflict and crises, and reliability. These skills should be developed for both project manager and project stakeholders.

Both inward and outward development can be achieved using specific trainings not covered in this paper. We recommend neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) and experiential approach (as we describe in other papers), but, in the end, it's up to the project manager for each specific project.

Process Approach: Apply, Inspect, and Adapt

Basically, as project managers, we should make sure that transparency is a continuous process during our project. So, we should apply the previously described personal approach (1^st step) and then we should choose a time box after which we inspect the success of the approach. If we find additional issues/problems, we can adapt and apply again. After a while (time box), we can check/inspect again and see if everything's okay. The basic principle (process) from Schwaber and Sutherland (2013) is just what we need to make sure that our “transparency” strategy pays off.

Now that we have obtained transparency, we can actually go for stakeholders’ buy-in and, consequently, empowerment. In the next section, we present ways to enhance the stakeholders’ management plan (as it is described in the PMBOK^® Guide) in a stakeholders’ empowerment plan, which will include the strategy (steps) described above.

Stakeholders’ Empowerment Plan

This plan is an enhancement of the stakeholders’ management plan, so their structures are similar. We will present the most important factors of the empowerment plan, pointing out the differences between the two.

Main Objective of the Plan

Using this plan, we want to empower our stakeholders. This way, we make our project more resilient, adaptive to change, and, consequently, prone to success.

Stakeholders’ Identification and Mapping

This part is in line with the original stakeholders’ management plan. Usually, as mentioned in the PMBOK^® Guide, stakeholders can be mapped on several criteria:

• Power/Influence Grid: groups the stakeholders based on their levels of authority (“power”) and involvement (“influence”) in the project
• Influence/Impact Grid: groups the stakeholders based on their active involvement (“influence”) in the project and on their ability to effect changes to the project's planning or execution (“impact”)
• Salience Model: describes classes of stakeholders based on their power (ability to impose their will), urgency (need for immediate attention), and legitimacy (appropriateness of their involvement)

Considering the objective of our plan (empowerment), our recommendation is to use:

• Power/Interest Grid: groups the stakeholders based on their level of authority (“power”) and their level of concern (“interest”) regarding the project outcomes

Exhibit 1 is an example of the grid we developed for one of our projects in which we made a stakeholders’ empowerment plan.

Exhibit 1 – Mapping for a stakeholders’ empowerment plan

Stakeholders Category Description

Categories can be the same as in the management plan: keep satisfied, manage closely, monitor, and keep close. Exhibit 2 is an example from the same project referenced in 6.2.

Exhibit 2 – Stakeholder category description (to be used for transparency strategy)

Empowering Instruments and Rules

In this section, we have both traditional stakeholders’ management tools and rules as well as new, empowering ones. Basically, from the traditional side, we will use communication instruments like committees (for different managerial levels), one-on-one meetings, status reviews, etc. For the empowering side, we will use psychological—experiential—methods like: creating safe environments, experimenting continuously, and using tools like the “vehicle of the future ” and the “circle of excellence” (McGuigan, 1997).

In Exhibit 3, you can find examples of the instruments used in the project mentioned in the above points.

Exhibit 3: Instruments used for empowering stakeholders in project management

In this section, we need also to establish rules for a wide range of situations: starting with the way the communication should be done (e-mails on different levels), continuing with escalations flows, and ending with the “power of decision” rules. More details will be provided in an extensive paper that we are going to publish at the end of the year.

As we can see, this empowering plan is heavily based on the structure of the “old” engagement plan. But its scope is much broader and more sensitive: They get power (of decision) and responsibility. This will certainly make stakeholders more resistant to working on a project, which will, in turn, make the role of the project manager trickier and more complex. However, the project will be more stable and prone to success.

Empowering Stakeholders: For Smashing Functional Silos

As project managers, we usually fight with functional hierarchies, since the formal authority (besides the one given by the project management methodology) is missing. And, in many situations, we see that the famous functional silos replicate at the project level. Empowering our stakeholders will smash these silos, helping to build trust and develop a successful project team.

Moreover, empowering (instead of just engaging) is, in our opinion, part of what we like to call project management 3.0, which makes use of the “holarchy” concept. We already demonstrated that the project can be seen as an organic CAM in which different parts (agents) have to interact in a dynamic way. This is actually the first step toward “an entity in which all parts are working together to create an autonomous whole,” as described in the “holarchy” concept (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holon_%28philosophy%29). When this is achieved (and we are working on this), project management will complete its transformation.

But we will further discuss the transformation and project management 3.0—based on holarchy—in our future papers.