Developing project management skills

It was 10:00 a.m. and the project team meeting had become emotionally charged and strained. Since 8:00 that morning, the team discussion had meandered from one problem to another without any consensus on specific actions to resolve the numerous project problems. In addition to two weeks of further project slippage and an estimated cost overrun of 75 percent, they were just informed that two project staff members would be reassigned to another project, the customer was demanding additional changes to the original design, and now a vendor informs them that hardware delivery will be delayed 12 days beyond the original commitment. The situation was serious. The team's tumultuous discussion continued as they wondered what other unforeseen issues lurked in the future.

Luckily for the project team, their problems and feelings of desperation were taking place in a training room. The scenario was all part of a simulation, but very believable project management computer-based exercise. Hypothetical, perhaps, but the problems and events are real-world, and are the types of realistic situations being built into project management training simulations.

The most satisfying experience in training is those moments when the individual's and team's spontaneous insights untangle the mess, and develop a more complete understanding of their problems and alternate courses of action. These sudden moments can occur in many different competency areas such as project methods and systems thinking, team relationships, and interpersonal skills. These eye-opening moments can endow trainees with a vivid and very deep understanding of even the most abstract and complex project management and leadership concepts.

Simulations for classroom learning, however, are widely varied and the word “simulation” can mean so many things to the point where “simulation” no longer carries useful meaning. Moreover, computer-based simulations are frequently differentiated by their “gizmo” factors and what makes them unique technically, rather than by what learning they produce. Simulations can be extremely powerful vehicles for creating enduring learning outcomes; however, many things can go wrong when using simulations in the classroom.

Revealed in this article are the hard lessons learned from many experiences in using project management simulations for training managers and teams, and other computer-based management simulation exercises, in many different organizational settings. Presented are some helpful insights into their current use in training project managers, some past problems with using computer-based management training simulations in the classroom, and current remedies to correct those problems. Also discussed is how a simulation can create the environment and the “feel” of a real project in the classroom, and finally what valuable learning outcomes occur as a result of going through this experiential exercise.

WHY A PROJECT MANAGEMENT SIMULATION?

In recent decades, projects have become increasingly more complex and multifaceted. The project manager and team must confront many challenges that don't always have one best answer. Yet, the success or failure of a project depends largely on the experience, insights, and knowledge of a skilled project manager.

The competencies required to manage complexity today are more extensive than ever before. In the past, project managers required good quantitative skills such as planning, scheduling, financial controls, and critical path analysis. As the Thamhain study indicates, equally important today are the abilities to manage quality, time-to-market, innovation, subcontractors, customers, and change [1]. In addition to good technical knowledge and administrative skills, this requires leadership and interpersonal skills. The Thamhain study also indicated that project managers perceive seminars and workshops as only a “somewhat effective method” of skill development but, at the same time, believe these competencies are “learnable” [1].

At the same time that pressures are on project managers to achieve results, demands are also on trainers to develop more in-depth training for more complex and extensive project management competencies. As a result, there is a need to create more innovative and effective training, driven by the factors of:

• Bringing training in line with the newly required project management competencies,
• Removing the distance between classroom theory and practical application,
• Making project management training relevant for today and the future needs of business,
• Making training accountable and responsible to the customer—the participants and their managers.

Consequently, project management classroom training technology is changing radically. Computer simulation training is one of a series of methods for developing hands-on project experience in numerous skills in an integrated way. Good simulations have the capability of condensing time so that participants develop many years of practical experience in just a few training days.

COMPUTER-BASED SIMULATIONS: Past Problems, Current Remedies

Simulations have been used for years to train pilots, astronauts, military commanders, and many others in technical disciplines. Technical simulations can range from simple replications, which teach trainees how to manipulate buttons and switches on a control panel, to a full-motion, high-fidelity look and feel simulation that reeves exactly like the real thing. Aircraft simulators have been known to leave pilots weak-kneed, short of breath, and sweating.

Management simulations are a direct outgrowth of war games, role playing, and computer modeling. It is well recognized that the 1956 American Management Association's Top Management Simulation was the forerunner for computer-based management simulations.

Early advocates of management simulations training tried to convince skeptics that simulations were not just classroom stunts, but effective learning vehicles, and in many ways more effective than traditional classroom lectures, role plays, and case studies. However, there were very good reasons why the skeptics avoided simulations in the old days:

• Early simulations were run on mainframe computers, creating administrative nightmares to get the simulation running and receive timely output without interruption.
• Software was difficult to use, and very often poorly written.
• Simulation documentation, when it existed, was not descriptive of the simulation and merely consisted of game rules with mathematical formulas. The rules left participants with the impression that they were playing a large-scale number-crunching management game. Many times the information contained on the simulation reports did not make a lot of sense.
• Instructors were typically “game administrators,” which meant they helped trainees understand the game rules and the computer input routines. The game administrator was often kept busy just interpreting the rules of the game or the simulation outputs.
• The workshop design was dominated by the simulation dynamics, without concern for the learning outcomes the simulation supported. The instructor focus was biased toward the simulation details, rather than the learning objectives and workshop design.

Considering all these problems, one might ask: Why did organizations continue using simulations? The answer to the question is really quite simple: Because even with all the distractions, people still reported richer, deeper insights than provided by more traditional teaching methods. After more than three decades since the appearance of the first computer-based management simulations, major developments and significant contributions have changed the growing field of simulation-based training, including:

Better hardware and software. New technology has made it possible to accomplish now what one could only dream of less than 15 years ago. Simulations are much easier to use now thanks to user-friendly software and the availability of powerful desktop hardware. The simulation outputs are easier to analyze and many reports have diagnostics to make their interpretation much clearer.

Richer, more robust simulations. Simulation designers sharpened the focus, became “smarter” about how to work with this newer training technology, and now create more realistic simulations suitable for the classroom. Designers now develop simulations that demonstrate business and project dynamic relationships and eliminate the cumbersome details that present distractions to learning. This makes the simulation easier to learn, providing a sense that trainees are managing a real project, and away from the mentality of playing a large-scale number-crunching game. Due to the diagnostics and ease of interpretation of reports, participants can spend more time practicing skills and less time analyzing simulation outputs. Another major improvement in simulation software is the capability to easily customize the software to more closely resemble the project realities of different organizations. In fact, a knowledgeable instructor can adjust the simulation software right in the classroom while running the workshop.

Integrated learning designs. In the past, the simulation dominated the learning design. Now, specific content, concepts, and principles are introduced throughout the experience by traditional methods such as lecture and discussion, video, group exercises, personal instrumentation, small cases, role plays, etc., and the simulation is used as the vehicle to practice and apply skills. The simulation-based workshop can focus on many different skill clusters simultaneously including team development, project planning and control methods, and interpersonal competencies. Debriefing sessions are conducted after each practice session to ensure the learning points were made and understood.

Better facilitation. The development of more robust and “friendlier” simulations frees the instructor to do more teaching. The instructor now has many varied functions in the workshop: (1) lecturing on key topics, (2) facilitating the team process, (3) playing the role of the boss or customer, (4) facilitating the simulation debriefings, as well as (5) managing the simulation and workshop exercises.

Richer, deeper learning outcomes. By no means last in its importance, the customer—trainees and their managers—receive higher quality, more realistic training in many different skill areas. They are now freed from learning cumbersome simulation mechanics and mathematics, to learning what has meaning and relevance for their jobs as project managers.

What is a Computer-based PM Training Simulation?

Project management simulations have a great deal in common with technical simulations in that they attempt to replicate complex and dynamic business relationships—to make it “feel” like it's real. They go beyond the technical by modeling people in order to address the human resource issues in project management. They enable project managers and teams to learn through doing by analyzing issues and problems similar to real-life situations, making decisions, and observing the consequences of actions over the time period being simulated. A good project management simulation compresses time and space so that it becomes possible to learn from the decisions made over a specific time, and to observe the consequences of those actions on other parts of the project. For example, one decision might have bad short-term consequences, but good long-term results. This is real life and leads to tradeoff considerations.

The reality of the project management simulation is created by establishing the organizational setting and quality, cost, and schedule targets of a specific project. The critical success factors for the project are interconnected to resemble project realities. This creates the possibility of dynamic interactions among these factors over the duration of the simulation. It also creates the possibility of dynamic team member interactions over the course of the exercise. As noted by Estes, “Although computerized simulations cannot simulate the normal interpersonal relationships … they can do something of even greater value in letting the participants experience the interpersonal relationships inherent in having to reconcile strong differences” [2]. By immersing a group of individuals into a simulated, lifelike context for a specific time period, it's possible to focus not only on teaching the “hard” project management skills, but also the “soft” interpersonal and teamwork skills. Senge has also found that “microworlds” are making it possible to “integrate learning about complex team interactions with training about complex business interactions” [3].

A good project management simulation captures the dynamic complexities of the project system and team process issues as they attempt to plan, schedule, budget, and implement the plan.

A good project management simulation captures the dynamic complexities of the project system and team process issues as they attempt to plan, schedule, budget, and implement the plan. As they confront tough issues and project situations, they have the opportunity to explore, try out new skills, insights, understandings, and strategies. If their strategy doesn't work, they still win—because they learn from what went wrong.

After a series of reflection and simulation debriefs, they can determine what went wrong and what they will do differently in the next decision round, or more importantly, what they will do differently if confronted with the same or similar problems on their real projects.

The Real and Unreal in a PM Simulation

At the beginning of the exercise, the simulation introduces a tolerable level of uncertainty and ambiguity to create an appropriate level of anxiety and creative tension in the participants. The project team makes assumptions and judgments based on partial information. The challenge they encounter generates excitement levels because it feels and appears like a real project, and becomes the basis for their total intellectual and emotional involvement in the exercise.

One of the simulation's many characteristics that makes it feel '‘life-like” is the presence of a project definition, work breakdown structure, milestones, and task definitions. The project must be planned within the cost, schedule, and quality constraints provided by the instructor. Several other attributes that enhance the realistic quality of the simulation include:

• Existence of simulated people with personalities, skills, salaries, availability, vacation schedules, personal work preferences, and other morale factors that make them lifelike;
• Existence of tradeoffs among cost, quality, schedule, and people;
• Use of vendors and contractors to support full-time staff;
• Presence of unexpected events which can periodically disrupt the project plan and create the need tore-plan quickly;
• Existence of project status meetings and other project communications;
• Existence of project management control information including schedules, resource histograms, project metrics, bar charts, network diagrams, financial baselines, hours and percent complete baselines, people reports, and control and tracking reports. The simulation is also programmed to link up with commercially available spreadsheets and the participants have the option of creating more control charts and graphs to track the project's progress.

The large number of issues contained in the simulation make it a rich information project environment. Rarely do participants attend to all the issues that they might want to if they were given unlimited time to participate in the simulation. As a result, participants must learn to manage the information needs, balancing the large picture vs. micro-managing details. The simulation has realistic time pressures and provides an ideal context for studying the team's process in handling the project's issues and problems. What issues did the team find most important? What key issues were ignored? How well are they working together as a team? These are examples of some team process issues they address.

The planning cycle provides the opportunity to practice developing project schedules and bar charts, analyzing the critical path and slack, resource planning, work load leveling, contingency planning, and budgeting. The control cycle involves participants implementing the project plan by making successive rounds of decisions and updating the baseline plan as they deal with the consequences of their decisions as well as unexpected events. Re-planning the project is often a critical strategy at different points in the program, as the results of their decisions are fed back in the form of project management reports that replicate many standard reports generated by most project management software packages. What makes the control process lifelike is the awareness that the simulation is rich and robust enough to handle many different strategies and approaches, all of which can work. They observe that they are generating the project issues and problems as a result of their own actions and must live with the consequences of their decisions. A project drama is unfolding before their very own eyes, and they are the directors of it. What was once a hypothetical simulation exercise, now feels like a real back-home project.

While there are many dimensions of the project simulation that make it realistic, there are limits on the degree to which simulations re-create all aspects of project management life.

First, the simulation is integrated with other training techniques such as lectures, discussions, case studies, videos, and personal style feedback instruments. The training staff shares how they think the project should be managed by positioning topics at different points in the learning design to demonstrate effective project concepts, tools, and techniques that can be used to manage the project. These actions are rewarded by the simulation results or by the instructional staff, but depend largely upon how well the concepts were applied.

Second, unlike real life, where work is followed by more work, participants have time to stop, reflect, and discover how they performed on the project issues and team process issues. This chance to stop and reflect, to isolate on cause, effect, successes, and failures, allows them to analyze their strategy, tactics, and team behaviors, and then decide what is working well and what is not.

Third, they receive timely, accurate, and diagnostic feedback from the computer, instructional staff, other team members, and personal style feedback instruments. Many participants report that the simulation reports contained more information than they ever receive back on the job in real projects. However, since many of the simulation reports are standard reports generated by many project management software programs, we encourage participants to investigate the many different packages in the marketplace.

Fourth, teams act collectively to manage the simulated project. No one person is designated the project manager, no team roles are assigned. The open-ended team might create more ambiguity than would be present on real projects. But the net effect of an open-ended team is the creation of a type of clean-slate effect, where their past experiences, mental models, styles, and project management skills become more visible as they manage the simulation exercise.

THE LEARNING OUTCOMES

Project management lends itself to simulation training because it embodies many complex and dynamic relationships. The simulation can be a powerful trigger to learning. However, the effectiveness of the simulation in the learning process depends on other factors outside the simulation. Within the learning process are other variables equally as important as the simulation. In developing simulations in different management contexts, we have become more and more convinced that many factors are involved, among the most significant being (1) the participants’ level of need and readiness to learn, (2) the capabilities of the instructors, (3) the workshop objectives and integration of core topics and materials around the simulation, (4) the organization's commitment and the context in which the learning takes place.

A great deal of learning can occur as a result of these factors coming together. Learning can occur on many different levels and in many different skills areas. The primary learning outcomes often cited by participants are:

Developing project systems thinking. Because projects are so complex, it sometimes becomes difficult for individuals to see all the interrelationships of the whole system. People may know the individual parts of the system, but don't completely understand how all the parts fit together. This can lead to the development of vague assumptions, inexact and incomplete understanding about how project systems operate and, consequently, to the development of unsuccessful strategies and decisions.

A simulation places the trainees inside a total system. They are better able to see the whole project as an integrated system and not just view separate parts. Working with and observing the interrelationship of problems and solutions brings about greater insights and understandings. The simulation's capability to compress time and space dimensions of a project, provides the opportunity to observe complex issues, and understand the dynamic relationships that they would not be able to observe in real life. They are able to see tradeoffs between short-term and long-term consequences as they play out the simulation event. They are themselves an active part of the system and observe firsthand how change to one component affects the others. As they practice new skills in repeated cycles and take time to reflect, they also become more confident in trying new approaches.

Developing project team management skills. We have noticed the inability of experienced and inexperienced project managers to work collectively in our workshops as they work on the simulation activity. We are no longer surprised by responses from participants in our workshops when asked the question: How many of you are currently working on a high performing team at your job? Very few raise their hands-less than 10 percent. We now understand that team training is far more complex than what we once believed. In fact, teamwork skills are more difficult to develop than individual skills. Teams confront enormously difficult issues, and are constantly challenged by what Senge cites as “complex dynamic realities with a language designed for simple, static problems” [3]. A project team has many interdependent, multiple realities occurring simultaneously, and very often with vague goals, roles, and procedures. They not only have to try to understand complex project task issues, but also complex people dynamics and relationships, all at the same time. Building effective teams requires training on more dimensions than just values, processes, and relationships. Insights into key project realities must also be built, specifically when to use task solutions and when to use process solutions. Although team process skills are vital, team relationships invariably break down under the pressures of real project systems problems.

Time after time, as the teams progress through the simulation exercise, we find the kinds of problems they face in real life in both task and relationship issues. It is fascinating to observe four individuals analyzing the same simulation data, observing the same trends, oftentimes having different interpretations of the problems and potential solutions, and trying to reach agreement on what to do next. Proper team alignment is difficult to achieve in real life. The simulation environment makes this difficult to achieve in the classroom as well. As a result, they act and behave just as they do in real life, exposing many of the individual strengths and weaknesses in working on teams. The simulation provides a practice field for teams, where they can play out different “people strategies” and also build their team process—all at the same time.

Performing tasks and skills simultaneously. Project managers must perform many concurrent tasks: meeting with vendors, dealing with sometimes angry customers, revising project plans, motivating team members. In the real world, skills are often needed in clumps. A good simulation can create an environment where they learn to do all these at the same time. Traditional training methods teach skills in a linear fashion, one by one. The demonstration that this material was learned comes from the ability to succeed in examinations which test rote learning. Learning in this context is not related to living and surviving in the real world of project management, particularly as the real world is so often experienced as a whole and not related to the boundaries of individual academic subject areas.

Seeing the project through other's eyes. A government agency decided to add contractors to a workshop in an attempt to encourage more cooperation in planning projects. A traditional adversarial relationship existed between the agency and its contractors. The project simulation and learning design were customized to encourage proactive planning, teamwork, and better control on projects. The teams were composed of representatives from both the government and contractors. Each team developed integrated project plans. The project planning process revealed just how vital effective communications, teamwork, and planning are to their real-life projects. During the exercise, participants developed a better understanding of each other's roles and responsibilities, constraints, and issues which created barriers to cooperation. In this case, the simulation served as a heightening and clarifying experience. After the exercise, the teams began discussing issues and barriers which prevented them from cooperating on real projects.

Performing under real pressures. Project managers are under continuous pressure to achieve results and are required to make quick decisions in chaotic and uncertain circumstances. Simulations can create environments full of genuine risks, pressures, and uncertainty, providing the trainees the opportunity to practice skills under duress, not in a tidy array as in a business school case study, but in the hectic disorder of a busy day at the office.