Dynamic Project Management in a Changing World By Bjarne Stark, LearningConsultant
Søren Christensen and Kristian Kreiner* have founded their book “Projektledelse i løstkoblede systemer” on a notion similar to that of many educational theorists, namely that the world is ever-changing, and as such it is difficult to predict the best possible solution to a problem during an earlier stage of planning. Learning therefore becomes a necessary antecedent to development, and so any project must be seen in the overall context of a learning process; the goal being to glean knowledge of the task and its premises during the process. In an ideal world, one might have all the information required for sound project planning immediately available, and the world would remain constant and unchanging throughout the project. “Projects usually operate with inadequate knowledge, in turbulent settings and on vague or ambiguous expectations”1. Accordingly, all projects are regarded as having a latent information and knowledge shortfall, which C & K identify as project management in an imperfect world. Central to this perspective is that the unknown doesn’t simply consist of unforeseeable problems, but “also contains the possibilities, that may bring us closer to those developmental goals we presumed as realistic at the point of design”.2 The KaosPilot style of project work is dynamic and arises from the ability to initiate and execute value-based and pioneering projects. Within this -as with C & K- there exists a tie to project work as a form of guide-orientated framework for organising activities toward a well-defined result. This latter is often referred to as a classic project approach. The term “dynamic project approach” is inspired by C & K, but originates to my knowledge from the KaosPilots, as a method of project understanding and as a work form that particularly focuses on the dynamic aspects of project management and project work. This includes aspects such as ideation, governance of goal and vision, handling complexity and change and also group dynamics and motivation.
*
Copenhagen Business School - Hereafter: C & K
1
Translation from Søren Christensen & Kristian Kreiner, ”Projektledelse i Løstkoblede
Systemer”, s.9, Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag 2001. 2
Translation from Søren Christensen & Kristian Kreiner, ”Projektledelse i Løstkoblede
Systemer”, s.55, Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag 2001.
At the heart of the KaosPilot approach to innovative project work then, is the observation that predefining results make less sense than aiming towards constant and ongoing development of the project outcome throughout the project. The KaosPilot project approach is rooted in practical methods and processes and so constitutes the primary body of student practice. I personally believe that most project managers will say that both dynamic and classic approaches are present in their project work. The distinction then, is more about what aspect is acknowledged as instructive.3 One of the most interesting aspects of Christensen and Kreiner’s conceptualisation is their overall regard of the project process as an ongoing learning process. The project outcome is developed through a continuous interplay with the milieu as we become more knowledgeable about the conditions, premises and possibilities that the task implies. Following from this, we can practicably divide the project “task” into four phases shaped by the dynamic frame of thought. At the same time, more importance is given to other processes/elements of the project, as compared to a classic project approach. 1: Goal setting phase (Dynamic mindset = motivation vs. the classic mindset = precision) An overall description of the project is in focus: what is the relevance, usefulness and meaning of the project? Central to this project phase is the conscious work with the participants’ motivation through the establishing of a project vision. A vision has qualitative abilities, which on the one hand makes it a poor starting point for planning, and on the other hand makes it capable of mobilising a great deal of resources –both economic and mental.4 In order to bridge the gap between the flexible vision and the more operational project goals, C & K suggest the term latent project goals as something that is of temporary character and is subject to continuous assessment. The absence of clear-cut goals carries with it the risk of stagnating the development process.
3
Søren Christensen & Kristian Kreiner, ”Projektledelse i Løstkoblede Systemer”, Jurist- og
Økonomforbundets Forlag 2001. 4
Søren Christensen & Kristian Kreiner, ”Projektledelse i Løstkoblede Systemer”, s.57
Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag 2001.
2: The planning phase (Mindset: symbolism vs. realism) Projects are subjected to significant uncertainty, and under these conditions it may make sense to manage project goals as tentative and situation specific substantiations of a vision, rather than as concrete and binding to the projects end results. Traditionally, project plans act as process manuals for those activities tabled for completion. However, this becomes problematic when the project and its conditions are continuously under development. Instead then, plans might be regarded as a mirror to which real and tangible situations might be related: these should partake in defining what aberrations need a new stance5 (the plan is nothing, planning is everything). Regarding plans as symbolic also opens up the possibility to transform them into attractive (unrealistic/ambitious) goals that promote participant engagement and creativity in solving the task. Absence of project plans will result in difficulties for the projects surroundings when relating to the project, and so may impact progress. Completely unrealistic plans undermine project integrity and diminish motivation. 3: Implementation phase (Mindset: exploration vs. control) This is where we normally expect the implementation of the various activities described in the plan, and the tangible realisation of the stated goals. The project manager’s task is reduced to a supervisory and authoritative function. “For the dynamic project manager, the task is hardly as uncomplicated: when the project is built on a vision that is only provisionally defined in concrete terms (latent goals); and when the project plan only equips us with a mirror, through which we may recognise and evaluate the process, but that does not contain any form for manual or handbook; there is a situational need for a different form for project management than simply the reactive, supervisory and controlling form”6. This might be described using the popular phrasing management vs. leadership. In this, great demand is held to the project manager’s (or project group’s) ability to take decisions and not be afraid to take risks. The latter is among other things
5
Søren Christensen & Kristian Kreiner, ”Projektledelse i Løstkoblede Systemer”, s.63 +
s66, Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag 2001. 6
Søren Christensen & Kristian Kreiner, ”Projektledelse i Løstkoblede Systemer”, s.73,
Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag 2001.
in order to be able to see and exploit any unforeseen opportunities that might arise during the implementation of the project. “We know what we are omitting when we transform the project process into a learning process; but for sound reasons we cannot know what we are given instead. If we assume that the feeling of safety that is brought about using a rational basis is false, the central challenge becomes to continuously maintain the project as a relevant and meaningful challenge for the participants, in such a way that participation is kept to a high degree and in such a way that the responsibility for success (completion of targets) is placed with the participants”.7 Success is here understood as the ability to reach the developed project targets through an ongoing development of the plans for project activity. In short, one might say that its not about following the plan, but rather about having a plan; not about reaching a result, but rather about reaching a useable and -according to context- ideal result. 4: Evaluation (Mindset: strategy/common sense (learning) vs. justice/measurement) In the context of the more traditional classic perspective evaluation is about knowing what we were supposed to attain with the project, and as such the evaluation task is to ascertain how much we actually accomplished. In a dynamic project we know what we have accomplished; the evaluation tasks is therefore to ascertain what we have attained with this. In this way, the perspective moves from being retrospective to forward-looking. In the extreme case, one might say that we are talking of a re-negotiation of the problem formulation that initiated the project. It is a sort of retrograde problem definition: what is the result a solution to? Christensen and Kreiner do not focus much on drawing the individual participant’s learning into perspective, but do acknowledge that many projects create a framework for acquisition of experience in order to motivate participants. However, it seems apparent that dynamic project participation demands welldeveloped competencies and a conscious attitude to one’s own role and function throughout the different phases of the project. In the framework of a learning perspective, it also seems ineffective that C & K do not proposition a more massive evaluation of the work process. It seems like the environment is primarily ascribed significance in determining the outcome of the 7
Søren Christensen & Kristian Kreiner, ”Projektledelse i Løstkoblede Systemer”, s.73–s.81,
Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag 2001.
project, though it is not hard to imagine how poorly a start one might get off to if one does not act according to the conditions imposed by the context of the project. There is a fundamental assumption at the KaosPilots that the students acquire skills on both the individual level and team level in order to perform the dynamic project form. In this context it now seems especially relevant to amalgamate the dynamic project form with a organisational learning perspective.8 In the same way one might argue for supplementing this with an educational-theory perspective of individual learning in the context of project work.
8 8
Søren Christensen & Kristian Kreiner, ”Projektledelse i Løstkoblede Systemer”, s.87-95,
Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag 2001.