The stream of training approach in projects

Introduction

“…a learning organization is an organization that is continually expanding its capacity to create its future” (Senge, 1992)

Abstract

In this paper, we suggest that the “stream of training” approach (described in Vequist & Teachout, 2008) that has been utilized in several implementation projects is more effective than the traditional project management communication and training approach. This approach combines traditional project communication and training to form a continuous stream of training throughout the life of the project.

Successful Projects and Project Communication and Training

It is known that effective communication and training (particularly on processes and applications) received during an implementation can increase the chance of a project being successful. According to Ritchie (2005), the five essential dimensions of project management expertise that are known to generate results are: (1) project management knowledge (e.g., scope management or project planning); (2) application area knowledge (e.g., business, functional, or technical expertise); (3) an understanding of key project environments (e.g., cultural, social, political, or physical factors); (4) general management skills (e.g., planning, staffing, executing, and controlling ongoing operations); and (5) interpersonal skills (e.g., communications, influencing practices, motivation, and managing change). All of these areas of knowledge can be communicated or trained to assist the stakeholders and customers of implementation projects.

In a recent example (found in the case study by Alexander, 2008) GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), because of its global nature, had to link different projects across their different workforces worldwide and make sure that these projects were still effective and streamlined. It did this through enabling all the project team members to understand exactly what their colleagues and managers wanted and needed. A major part of this global communication was that GSK, for the past five years, implemented project management training at every conceivable level of the organization and across six sites in the United Kingdom, as well as in Italy and the United States. They also have plans to implement this training in other GSK centers such as France, Spain, and also in Canada. As can be seen in this example, the question for most organizations is, how can project teams improve upon the communication and training developed during an implementation?

Stream of Training Approach

This innovative stream of training approach was introduced in an article in the Encyclopedia of Information Communication Technology released this year (Vequist & Teachout, 2008). To briefly summarize, within artificial intelligence (AI) research, there is an approach of inputting a “stream of training” or a continuous flow of data/information into a system in order to let it learn from the relationships present in the stream. The systems used in this type of research usually rely upon very sophisticated algorithms or models (see Rosario, 1992 for a description) to interpret these relationships. This stream of training approach is possible in modern computing because of the advanced speed of current processors and the increased capacity of neural networks. Therefore, since human brains operate in a similar manner to an artificially constructed neural net (most people have fast enough processors and a decent amount of nodes!); it would stand to reason that project team members could be successful in interpreting a stream of data/information as well. So, in utilizing this stream of training approach, the project team would combine two very similar constructs (communication and training) into a steady stream of data/information to all relevant stakeholders.

Cleland (1994) focused an entire chapter in his book on project management to project communications. In one of the first sections of the chapter, Cleland (1994, p. 361–362) lists the types of information and methods of communication that he suggests are important to a project’s success, they include:

  • plans,
  • policies,
  • procedures,
  • objectives,
  • goals,
  • strategies,
  • organizational structure,
  • linear responsibility charts,
  • leader and follower style,
  • meetings,
  • letters,
  • telephone calls,
  • small group interaction, and
  • example set by the project manager.

Interestingly, many of these same pieces of information (and the methods by which they are communicated) are utilized by members of the project team in training the recipients of the project deliverables. For example, a person developing training on a new system would utilize project plans, objectives, and goals as well as the results of project meetings as input to content for course curriculum. Because many of these sources of information and methods are found in both project communication and training (see Exhibit 1), it makes sense to look at them as an integrated aspect of the overall project management process perspective rather than as separate functions.

Integrated communication/training approach

Exhibit 1: Integrated communication/training approach

Using Cleland’s (1994) list as a starting point, the authors suggest some typical project artifacts that could be combined in an integrated approach throughout the lifecycle of the project include (from Figure 1):

  • Project timeline—communication regarding the project timeline is distributed to all relevant stakeholders;
  • Project team—the background and experiences of the project team are communicated with all relevant stakeholders;
  • Milestones—milestone achievement, prerequisites and other relevant data is shared with all relevant stakeholders;
  • Best practices/lessons learned—these are developed into FAQs, process improvements and/or training content and then communicated or trained to relevant stakeholders;
  • Change control—changes to the project timeline, scope or team are communicated to all relevant stakeholders;
  • Process flows—the process work flows, changes and/or improvements are communicated to all relevant stakeholders and/or developed into training materials for relevant users;
  • Project team communication—project team communications (e.g., project team meeting notes) are distributed to all relevant stakeholders;
  • Draft versions—draft versions of the applications or systems are made available to all relevant stakeholders;
  • Sandbox—a beta version of the application or system is made available for training purposes;
  • Feedback from stakeholders—feedback about the application and/or system is collected from users and communicated back to the project team/or and all relevant stakeholders; and
  • User acceptance—user acceptance training, validation and/or vetting occurs and any relevant data/information is collected and turned into FAQs, process improvements and/or training content and then communicated or trained to relevant stakeholders.

So, to summarize, in a stream of training approach, both project communication and training are combined in an integrated, continuous flow of data/information that both informs and manages stakeholder expectations. A model for this integrated approach is shown in Exhibit 2. In this model, you can see how both training and communication can flow throughout the project and utilize integrated data/information sources (such as was listed previously) that were created by the project team.

Stream of training model

Exhibit 2: Stream of training model

Advantages of the Stream of Training Approach

“Remember that the customer has to be happy with the project’s progress and its results. Build your customer communication philosophy around this objective.” (Cleland, 1994, p. 379)

Reich, Sauer, and Wee (2008) described the three deficiencies of traditional project management based on interviews with many senior IT managers: (1) the inattention to the importance of customers; (2) the narrow definition of what project management should be concerned with; and (3) the single-minded focus on a fixed set of tools and techniques. One of the potential advantages of the stream of training approach is that it is truly focused on the needs of the end user. In fact, the streaming approach can even incorporate a feedback loop to ensure that the communication and training improves over time based on the preferences of the project stakeholders. An example of this type of feedback loop would be the Duetero learning model. Duetero learning is characterized as active, holistic learning, where continuous feedback is sought, and the process reinforces a long-term orientation (Liepė & Sakalas, 2008). In a typical projects, communication and training usually occur in a one-off format, often with little chance to improve. In the streaming approach, communication and training can improve over time as the project team and the various stakeholders give their feedback (see Exhibit 3) and the efforts of the change management team become more refined.

Duetero learning model (Liepė & Sakalas, 2008)

Exhibit 3: Duetero learning model (Liepė & Sakalas, 2008)

In addition, an integrated or streaming approach to communication and training may lead to less conflict and confusion among key stakeholders about the current status of the project team. In the Field Guide to Project Management, Cleland (1997) suggested that there are eight project management functions that can be a source of conflict.

  • Scope: what is to be done (results, products, services);
  • Quality: what measures, what steps to be taken;
  • Cost: financial outcomes, savings, ROI;
  • Time: deadlines, resources, when complete;
  • Risk: what risks are accepted, avoided, deflected;
  • Human Resources: what resources, what skills, availability, competency;
  • Contract/Procurement: cost, requirements/specifications, when, how, what, where; and
  • Communciations: when, how, to whom, contains what.

In a typical project, communication may come from different individuals or groups depending on which functions are involved. In the traditional project management approach, this can lead to the perception of functional “silos” within the project team itself (see Exhibit 4 for an example of the various functions) and decrease the effectiveness and efficiency of the project teams’ communication and training efforts.

The function-process-time relationship in project management (Wideman, 2003, p. 4)

Exhibit 4: The function-process-time relationship in project management (Wideman, 2003, p. 4)

  In addition, there may be different information repositories, which the various project management functions draw from and may not be fully shared. This can be a source of ineffectiveness or inconsistency which can lead to project risk. The streaming approach can mitigate some of this risk through a more effective and consistent message. In support of this, it was found in the GSK case study that after common project management training was implemented:

Project team members now use a common language to identify the risks on their projects and approach risk management in a more consistent way, which is having an effect throughout the entire organization. There is a clear mandate from senior management that all new projects come with a detailed risk plan to be reviewed before a project is given the green light for large-scale development. (Alexander, 2008)

Stallworthy and Kharbanda (1983) suggested that an area of project expense that is commonly overlooked and severely underestimated is pre-operational expenses. These are expenses that occur in the operations area of product development prior to producing a product. They suggested that the training of both operational and maintenance personnel would be considered a pre-operational expense, as the personnel have to be trained before the plant goes “live.” This can sometimes lead to a “prolonged startup and commissioning period” which are sometimes hidden costs in the project (Stallworthy & Kharbanda, 1983, p. 154–155). The integrated streaming approach suggested by the authors can reduce these costs through integrating the communication and training functions. Also, the training of personnel would occur during the lifetime of the project therefore reducing the amount of ‘downtime’ of end users and project team members.

In addition, there seems to be some other advantages that differentiate this approach from the traditional approach. Some additional advantages are:

  • The initial screen prints (on software projects) and other project-level information are distributed to first-line staff employees so that their awareness and understanding of the application prior to ‘go-live’ are increased.

  • The training is performed in a “just-in-time” basis and is developed from project materials which allows for a quick turnaround of information and knowledge.
  • This approach adds additional content and “realism” to project team communications.
  • This approach can also add to higher adoption rates and less resistance to change among stakeholders.

Based on these potential benefits, it is suggested that project teams, which have as their responsibility both the communication of project data/information and the training of end users, consider the integrated streaming approach.

Summary and Conclusions

“I found that, overwhelmingly, their favorite part of our day was project time. Why?…’We get to make our own choices.’ The (employees) see the projects as being theirs, as being relevant to their lives. And entrusting them with the freedom and opportunities to co-create their curriculum gives them ownership and a sense of belonging to the [community]. They have a real stake in what goes on because so much of it is their own creation.” (Wolk, 1994, p. 45)

Projects provide an opportunity for companies to implement strategies that can provide the organization with a competitive differentiator. Projects usually involve standardized practices and processes, such as that suggested by the project management approach, or individual, structured work routines, such as prescribed by the CMM approach. These approaches can be utilized as a learning platform leading to knowledge driven performance improvement. Ramasubbu, Mithas, Krishnan, & Kemerer (2008) established that investments in learning are one of the fundamental mechanisms which influence project performance.

The streaming approach to project communication and training offers many potential benefits over the traditional project management approach. These possible advantages over the traditional approach to project communication and training are summarized in Exhibit 5.

Potential advantages of the streaming approach

Exhibit 5: Potential advantages of the streaming approach

Dinsmore (1999) listed 14 principles for successful enterprise project management—#13 is “Communication in enterprise project management covers the spectrum from alignment of companywide goals on one end to interpersonal communication on the other” (p. 195). Communication in an enterprise project should be comprehensive (‘cradle to grave’) but the case can be made for training as well. Training should not just be considered as just another function of the project or even worse; simply a final deliverable. Imagine a scenario, where a training course on a new application (for new entry level employees) did not incorporate information about the new processes (put in place by the project team) nor did it cover aspects of the new operating system or hardware (that were determined to be requirements or issues early on in the risk analysis performed by project team). This would most likely be a very unsuccessful implementation. In a best practices example, both training and communication should be comprehensive, just-in-time, and intertwined so that they cover the same source materials and tell the same story.

As this is a fairly new approach to project communication and training, the authors suggested that more research should be undertaken in the application of this methodology on large-scale implementations. From personal experience, the authors had been involved in several implementations where this approach was utilized with some success. One area of research for this approach could be if this model works well in virtual project teams. Studies have found that knowledge transfer problems arise when communication and storage technologies are employed to accomplish work collaboratively across time and space (Leonardi & Bailey, 2008). Also, it would be interesting to find out if there are differences in this approach’s effectiveness when used in asynchronous (versus a synchronous) manner.

Another area of research that could be explored is to determine if the streaming approach to project communication and training leads to higher levels of satisfaction among project team members, less conflict, and better achievement of milestones and results. The streaming approach can provide the project team members with more ownership, and this approach may lead to higher levels of career expectancy and self development. In support of this, Vequist and Dominguez (2005) found that there are five constructs that seem to underlie the fulfillment that some people feel being involved in project teams. These constructs are:

  • Autonomy—the condition or quality of being autonomous or independent);

  • Career Expectancy—expecting that the outcome will assist them in their career;
  • Ownership—able to take ownership or responsibility for outcomes;
  • Self Development—the ability to learn from activities in a self-paced manner; and
  • Sociability—giving the opportunity to enjoy the company of others.

In conclusion, it is suggested that this approach may improve upon some of the traditional, functional areas of project management. The streaming approach to project communication and training is a small process improvement that may increase the overall effectiveness and efficiency of project teams and possibly lead to a greater chance for project success.

Alexander, J. (2008.) GlaxoSmithKline: Improving Global Project Management Capability.

Cleland, D. I. (1994). Project management: Strategic design and implementation (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Cleland, D. I. (1997). Field guide to project management. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Dinsmore, P. (1999). Winning in business with enterprise project management. New York: AMA Publications.

Leonardi, P., & Bailey, D. (2008). Transformational technologies and the creation of new work practices: Making implicit knowledge explicit in task-based offshoring. MIS Quarterly, 32, 2.

Liepė, Z., & Sakalas, A. (2008). The three-loop learning model appliance in new product development. Engineering Economics, 3, 58.

Ramasubbu, N., Mithas, S., Krishnan, M. S., & Kemerer, C. (2008). Work dispersion, process-based learning, and offshore software development performance. MIS Quarterly, 32, 2.

Reich, B., Sauer, C., & Wee, S. (2008). Innovative Practices for IT Projects. Information Systems Management, 25.

Ritchie, P. (2005). The five dimensions of project management expertise: Balancing knowledge and skills to grow your career in an SAP world. Managing SAP Projects 2005.

Rosario, R. A. C. (1992). A conjugate-gradient based algorithm to train feedforward multilayer perceptrons. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida Institute of Technology.

Senge, P. M. (1992) The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization. Milson Point, NSW: Random House Australia.

Stallworthy, E., & Kharbanda, O. (1983). Total project management. Aldershot, Hants, England: Gower Publishing Company Unlimited.

Vequist, D., & Dominguez, D. (2005). The fulfillment of application. University of the Incarnate Word- Faculty Anthology.

Vequist, D., & Teachout, M. (2008). “Stream of Training” approach in project management training. In A. Cartelli & M. Palma (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Information Communication Technology. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Wideman, R. (2003). Review of the book , PMP® Project Management Professional Study Guide. Retrieved online October 2005 from www.maxwideman.com.

Wolk, S. (1994). Project-based learning: pursuits with a purpose. (Strategies for Success) Educational Leadership, 52(3) 42–45.

© 2008, Vequist & Teachout
Originally published as a part of 2008 PMI Global Congress Proceedings – Denver, Colorado, USA

Advertisement

Advertisement

Related Content

  • Project Management Journal

    Navigating Tensions to Create Value member content locked

    By Farid, Parinaz | Waldorff, Susanne Boche This article employs institutional logics to explore the change program–organizational context interface, and investigates how program management actors navigate the interface to create value.

  • Project Management Journal

    Getting Past the Editor's Desk member content locked

    By Klein, Gary | Müller, Ralf To reach acceptance, every research paper submitted to Project Management Journal® (PMJ) must pass several hurdles. This editorial aims to declare the editorial process and reveal major reasons for…

  • Project Management Journal

    Investigating the Dynamics of Engineering Design Rework for a Complex Aircraft Development Project member content locked

    By Souza de Melo, Érika | Vieira, Darli | Bredillet, Christophe The purpose of this research is to evaluate the dynamics of EDR that negatively impacts the performance of complex PDPs and to suggest actions to overcome those problems.

  • Project Management Journal

    Coordinating Lifesaving Product Development Projects with no Preestablished Organizational Governance Structure member content locked

    By Leme Barbosa, Ana Paula Paes | Figueiredo Facin, Ana Lucia | Sergio Salerno, Mario | Simões Freitas, Jonathan | Carelli Reis, Marina | Paz Lasmar, Tiago We employed a longitudinal, grounded theory approach to investigate the management of an innovative product developed in the context of a life-or-death global emergency.

  • Project Management Journal

    Narratives of Project Risk Management member content locked

    By Green, Stuart D. | Dikmen, Irem The dominant narrative of project risk management pays homage to scientific rationality while conceptualizing risk as objective fact.

Advertisement