Project management

In presenting this overview, the writer has approached the topic with certain cautions, keeping in mind a hard-won lesson realized by the U. S. Navy. Following World War II, an early class of destroyer had one particular ship which crossed the Atlantic at a faster average speed than any other ship in that class had previously produced. The ship was brought into the Brooklyn Navy Yard, disassembled to determine what was different about it, and evaluated. The evaluators found that the ship had no unusual features, and was just presumably put together with no mistakes in its shipyard construction. The irony was that, following its reassembly, the ship never performed to the average of its sister ships.

In evaluating project management, we must take care not to dissect the technique in such a manner that we render it ineffectual.

Definition

The dictionary definition of a project is: “an undertaking requiring a concerted effort.” More informative definitions by those in project management tend to add conditions such as: projects are complex efforts to achieve specified results within a schedule and budget; projects typically cut across organizational and functional lines; projects are unique and not completely repetitious of some previous effort.

Larry Bennigson, formerly of the Harvard Business School and past Chairman of PMI, combines definitions of projects and project management as follows: “project management occurs when management gives emphasis and special attention to the conduct of non-repetitive activities for the purpose of meeting a single set of goals.”

Eric Jenett, of Brown and Root, and also a past Chairman of PMI, presents a very explicit definition of project management: “PM is the planning and scheduling and subsequent management and direction of the time phased pattern of application of resources (time, dollars, people, equipment, material), skills and knowledge to the execution (completion) of the various components and segments of a project. This must be done in an orderly economical manner and sequence so that the project objectives as to time, dollars, and technical end results are successfully met. In day to day practice, project management in large measure actually is interface or conflict management; it must almost continually curb, direct, counter or if necessary override almost everyone’s self-interest. Information, response times, structural relationships, communication channels, techniques and tools are either themselves very temporal in nature or keyed to the temporary nature of projects. PM can be likened to management of a just-formed company whose sole objective is to go out of business as rapidly and economically as possible while still reaching a given goal of accomplishment — project completion on cost/schedule — via an unknown and usually undefined route.”

Factors Affecting Success

The Management Institute of Boston College undertook a broad-based study for the National Aeronautics Space Administration (NASA) to investigate the interactions of project characteristics in terms of project performance. In cooperation with PMI, the entire membership received a comprehensive survey, to which a very successful 646 responses were received. The study was conducted by Dr. David C. Murphy, Dr. Dalmar Fisher, and Dr. Bruce N. Baker. The results have been presented at several of the annual seminar-symposiums, always to standing room only crowds — and the information is received with great interest.

The questionnaire addressed more than 200 individual items, of which the evaluators considered 116 or 58% to be significant. 15 items were found to strongly affect success, while 34 tended to affect success, and 25 appeared to be associated with success. Thus, some 36% of the factors considered were associated with success.

The result in some ways reflected an amazing grasp of the obvious — and this ability to describe or identify the obvious is often an important success in itself.

The investigators concluded: “project management is a complex mechanism containing numerous variables significant to project success. There is no simple approach to insure project effectiveness. Many factors contribute to project success.”

Further, they suggested that: “the presence of negative determinants tend to cause failure, but the absence of negative determinants is not a sufficient condition for success. The presence of positive determinants is necessary for success, but will not insure against failure.”

They concluded: “the potential success of a project is established by agents external to the team. The influence of the project manager and project team is therefore limited.”

These external agents include the project management organization within which the PM must work, and the client organization which he is attempting to please (which may be the same organization). The researchers stated that the on-going nature of the parent organization need not necessarily be a fatal obstacle to the success of the well-managed project, nor can the parent organization be a factor which by its presence or absence makes a success of a poorly managed project.

Organization

Project management is a new term for an organizational situation created to meet an ad-hoc problem.

Today’s major organizational management structure has evolved from two great institutions: the church and the military. The entire concept of each organization is oriented toward order and stability. One of the major motivations is the continuation of the functions of the parent organization, with a minimum of changes.

However, within this broad and rather inflexible framework, the institutions do have the problem of getting certain specific goals accomplished. To meet this challenge, project teams led by missionaries in the church and military task force commanders in the military were created. Although carrying out of goals is viewed as a salutory duty in both organizations, the fact that a task or a mission does not fall within traditional lines of authority and function, tends to frustrate the management coterie or bureaucracy.

The unique nature of the mission or task force (i.e. project team) tends to set it apart from the parent organizational structure. This, in turn, tends to alienate those in the parent organization responsible for maintaining the organizational equilibrium. It also attracts to the project team a special type of person with either the inclination for independent action, or the special capabilities required to implement specific characteristics of the task or goal.

In many ways, the project manager can be compared with the non-commissioned officer in the infantry. While low in the organizational structure, this is the individual who leads at the implementation level. Although the importance of sergeants is implicitly recognized, this recognition by the officer corps has a substantial element of reluctance about it. Much of the recognition is by default, because the senior officer levels really do not care to lead patrols or missions, however important they may be.

Recognition of the non-commissioned project manager is at its height just before and during the actual mission.

The non-commissioned project manager (i.e. sergeant) has other problems besides authority and recognition. Limited resources are one of these. A mission has to be accomplished with the resources assigned, and because of his limited authority, the non-commissioned project manager is unable to call upon reserves unless his situation is in extremis, and then often too late to do any good. These limitations on the military project manager encourage the development and exercise of innovation and ingenuity in accomplishing assigned missions.

Because of his limited rank, he can command only his own team in the field — and yet in the confusion of a mission, the need and opportunity often arises to direct others. The successful non-commissioned project manager solves this problem through the application of leadership, using tact, persuasion, diolo-macy and guile.

This analogy of the non-commissioned project manager was recently recognized by a high official of the Department of Defense addressing a class of project/program managers at the Defense Systems Management School. He said to the class: “if you were a platoon leader and you ran out of ammunition, I don’t think you would just sit there, you would start screaming to high heaven that you want some ammunition . . .”

In the military analogy, the sergeant understands the basic command structure. He understands the latitude, if any, which he can take in a given situation. The project manager would do well to emulate this approach. First, understand the organizational structure of the parent, the client, and any other groups which have a mandatory interface with the project.

In organizational terms, a project has a relatively short life. In most cases, it is impractical to expect an inflexible organization to change. (Further, even if the organization is willing to change, the machinery to change often grinds slower than the schedule of the project itself.)

Russ Archibald, a charter PMI founder, discussed the management of projects as follows: “managing projects is without question a difficult job. It is a rare organization these days that is satisfied with its performance on projects, in meeting schedules and budgets, achieving desired quality of end results and controlling the effort without too much management infighting . . . managing projects is considerably more complex than managing stable organizations. The traditional concepts learned in the graduate business schools do not apply very well in project management. In fact, severe conflicts usually exist between organizational or functional line management on one hand, and the project management team on the other. . . .”

Project Management as a Structure

Alvin Toffler in his book “Future Shock” commented on project management as a structure: “we are witnessing not the triumph, but the breakdown of bureaucracy. We are, in fact, witnessing the arrival of a new organizational system that will increasingly challenge and ultimately supplant bureaucracy. This is the organization of the future ... the high rate of turnover (in organizational relationships) is most dramatically symbolized by the rapid rise of . . . ‘project’ or ‘task force’ management . . . Indeed, project management has in itself become recognized as a specialized executive art . . .”

While recognizing the management art form, we must take the position that project management is not really a stand-alone management structure. In fact, the long term project management structure becomes a new bureaucracy. The project manager should be cautious to remember that one of the project manager’s basic assignments is to work himself out of a job.

Organizational Basics

All management authorities agree that there is no ideal organizational structure. Several make the observation that given the choice between a good or bad manager or organization, the better chance for success was with the good manager in the bad organization.

Drucker makes some observations in regard to the vertical hierarchial structure of the traditional organization: “a hierarchy does not . . . make the superior more powerful. On the contrary, the first effect of hierarchial organization is the protection of the subordinates against arbitrary authority from above. A scaler or hierarchial organization does this by defining the sphere within which the subordinate has the authority, the sphere within which the superior cannot interfere . . . Protection of the subordinate underlies also the scaler principle’s insistence that a man have only one superior ...”

“But also, hierarchy is needed in any structure by both individual members and the entire organization. There has to be someone who can make a decision; or else the organization deteriorates into a never-ending bull session. The knowledge organization in particular needs extreme clarity with respect to dec-sion authority and specific designated channels . . .”

The Matrix

Dr. David Cleland is a PMI leading matrix organizational specialist, who viewed the problems of the vertical organizational structure, noting that this organizational arrangement deals decisively with problems of efficiency and control in current operations. However, the organization is generally unable to deal effectively with task-oriented problems for two basic reasons: organization parochialism and disciplinary parochialism.

Organizational Parochialism: There is a tendency for each manager to view his organization as the center of affairs particularly if his department has had past successes. If the manager has profit center responsibility, this form of parochialism is usually reinforced. There is unfortunately little recognition either in merit increases or promotional opportunities for task oriented performance versus functional traditional performance.

Disciplinary Parochialism: Managers tend to perform (often unknowingly) in a narrow, specialized function which was the basis of their education and first work experiences. Many of their basic managerial disciplines and views were shaped through this combination of education and early experience. To the extent that the manager is inclined to become over-involved with those areas with which he is familiar, he neglects inter-disciplinary approaches and overall effectiveness of strategy.

Project management activities are represented by a series of horizontal network activities, threaded through the vertical structure, creating a matrix.

The matrix continues to depend upon the organizational structure of the vertical hierarchy, working through it to achieve project results. He recommends a context suggested by Drucker: “sound organization structure needs both (a) hierarchial structure of authority, and (b) a capacity to organize task forces, teams and individuals for work on both a permanent and temporary basis.”

Interface Between Project Manager and Organization

Almost without exception, the project manager sees himself as an individual with great responsibility and limited authority. Generally, he is quite correct. For a variety a reasons, management chooses to assign responsibility to the project manager. For a different variety of reasons, management is always reluctant to delegate authority on a broad basis.

The project manager who expects to have his authority clearly documented in a written charter or in the form of a crisp organizational chart will be disappointed in either of two ways. Generally, he will not get the clear, crisp charter which he desires. Should he be fortunate (or unfortunate) enough to achieve his apparent clear authority, he will often find it difficult to enforce.

In the vertical hierarchy, authority through established position or office is a finite commodity. (Typically, once assigned, the individual tends to enhance his authority through his actions, or to diminish it in the same manner.)

The successful project manager has to emphasize those things which he believes can be accomplished within the organizational structure, not lament those which cannot. A successful project management outlook has been “evolution, not revolution.”

The Project Manager: Key to Success

Having examined the various relatively inflexible structures which influence, in an external sense, the potential of a project in the form of the parent organization, the client organization, regulatory organizations and environment in which the project is to proceed, the question can well be raised: “what is the positive potential for a project?”

Our NASA team was pessimistic. “A high degree of team spirit, good coordination and rapport between the project team, the client and the parent organization and adequate administrative, social and technical skills on the part of the project manager are ingredients often assumed to be highly related to project success.” The analysis showed, however, that while the absence of these ingredients predicts project failure, their presence insures only mediocrity not success.

The point is an important one and has certain wisdom. However, an analysis of success is a chancy thing. Granted, there are projects which have no opportunity for success because they start with too many implicit (and sometimes explicit) liabilities against them. For those that could succeed, the project management team has to be the key to success. It exists because it represents flexibility, and a means to accomplish an end.

Dave Morton of the present PMI Board sees the project manager as a catalyst to change. He points out: “management is getting things done through people. Technical knowledge is not enough, for every managerial decision has behavioral consequences . . . The project manager finds himself in most instances in a unique job within a complex environment, interacting with people of many disciplines and functions . . . acting as a catalyst, the project manager with this single point of responsibility and centralized planning and control can more efficiently and effectively respond to the constant rapid changes in external and internal environment, molding individuals into a team to obtain project objectives. The very nature of the project management organization often produces conflict with the functional organization and in many instances, the project manager must coerce people into getting the work done since he may not have the legitimate authoritarian power to direct the work.”

While the project manager lacks the stability of the traditional organization, he has the opportunity to innovate. Where the typical functional manager has been taught to standardize all operations, the project manager must think in terms of dynamic change. If he is prepared to cope with change of this nature, he may have a substantial psychological advantage over those in traditional organizational structures.

The project manager has two basic functions, first to develop a project plan and then to implement it.

His ability to focus the talents of his project management team will be a direct result of his leadership capabilities. In this regard, his use of project management tools and his ability to communicate will be key factors.

Project Management Tools

The NASA-sponsored study on factors for success had a generally negative response to project management tools. In regard to project management techniques, the summary recommended: “judicious and adequate, but not excessive, use of planning, control and communication systems.”

This is certainly a fair analysis. However, in the discussion of the results, the authors appear to present a bias against project management tools: “it appears that the area of project management is overly-fond of PERT-CPM. The analysis, however, shows that PERT-CPM techniques contribute relatively little to success when compared to other determinants. In some cases, it was found that PERT-CPM techniques were over-used and over-detailed, creating excessive control and thus tending to detract from project effectiveness. In other cases, over-reliance on PERT-CPM occurred to the extent that other important considerations were being neglected, again detracting from potential success.”

The statements are doubtless true, but taken out of context and with no positive remarks regarding project management techniques, it would appear that use of project management techniques are one of the negative determinants.

It is understandable that project management academicians and management academicians who are totally involved with the many facets of success in the managerial world would be disconcerted at the tremendous emphasis upon project management tools at the annual Project Management Institute (PMI) seminars, and at the Internet International Congress (bi-annual) (in fact, the specific topic for Internet-76 held in England in 1976 was “Project Planning by Network Techniques”).

The papers presented at these international meetings, 11 of which have been conducted, have had networking as subject matter in a majority of instances, either directly in describing techniques utilized, or in the form of case studies.

In the whole context of project management success, the project manager’s tools are a limited and finite area. However, from the project manager’s standpoint, recognizing the many inflexible constraints placed upon his ability to perform, project management tools can be a very important means of developing and describing the project plan; communicating with his own team and with higher management, as well as the client; and in leading his own team toward their goals.

Networks as Planning Tool

Networking was originally developed in 1955-1959 to harness the power of the electronic computer to the problem of planning and scheduling activities in the construction process. However, as a project management tool, networking can be used very effectively in a manual mode.

The strength of networking lies in the weakness of the computer. Because the computer cannot think, has no imagination, must be instructed, can’t improvise and can’t make excuses — it was necessary to develop a means of describing the flow of a process to this ignorant machine.

The network is able to simulate the thinking process of a human being. However, it insists upon sequential continuity, thereby imposing a discipline The human can think to a point, and hope for the best beyond. The network, in order to achieve a result, cannot. It cannot tolerate a break in its chain of activities. It therefore requires that the human using it think the process through from start to finish.

The conference approach to developing networks is almost startling in its acceptance, its accuracy and its effectiveness. The system does not insure accuracy or clairvoyance — but it does lead to inductive encouragement of creative thought. It also becomes clear that the project team members know much more about the details than they thought they did — and this knowledge is brought into focus as it is required in the evolution of the network.

It also becomes clear that the team often is unaware of the truly critical or controlling areas. While the controlling activities are usually intuitively known, definition of certain side issues, particularly in areas such as the obtaining of permits or funding, may prove to be more critical than the readily identified sequence of events.

The combined action of discussion of the project by a knowledgeable group results in an organization of thinking. It permits consideration of .alternative approaches, and demands decisions. A concomitant advantage is an orientation of the entire project team, and for those less experienced, a training background.

The initial plan, when evaluated, will usually require more time than the program permits. The team then has the option to attempt to readjust the plan to meet the scheduled commitments, which is the usual approach — or it may attempt to have the schedule rearranged. In this case, the network can be utilized as a communication device. This is particularly effective when it is drawn to a time scale, since a layman can readily acclimate to the knowledge presented on a calendar basis.

Conclusions:

* This paper is based on a presentation to the PMI Metropolitan New York Chapter, September 22, 1976.