Scientific Method and Art of Human Relationships

All projects need simple processes in place to monitor and control cost, progress and quality. It is argued, however, that projects involving innovation and complexity, almost regardless of size, need a systems approach to project management.

PM1 Term Paper

Lecturer: Dr Stephen Pryke
09/11/2012

Ani Baboomian Ghaleh Mamakani

University College London Student Number: 12066926

Introduction
Before actually starting to explore some different approaches to Project Management, in the first section we are going to define some concepts which will be used throughout this whole document.

1. Concepts and Definitions

1.1 Project and Organisation
A Project is defined as a set of interconnected tasks that aim to achieve a common goal. The construction of a building or a ship, the development of specific software, the relief operation after a natural disaster, are all examples of projects (PMI, 2009). One core characteristic of a project is the time constraint, that is, any project needs a clear start and a clear end. So a project is defined by its own goals, but also by its limited resources, like funds, materials, equipment, and people. The goal of the project is what all the parts involved intend to achieve as a coalition. This coalition is shaped into an Organisation, a social unit of people that is structured and managed to meet to pursue that collective goal (businessdictionary.com).

1.2 Project Management

All projects need management to determine and monitor the roles and responsibilities of each member of the organisation and its relationship with the organisation itself. Project Management really aims at one thing: Implement the best possible actions to successfully complete the project on-time, meeting the agreed quality standards (PMI, 2009)

This is what is often referred as the Iron Triangle: time (task scheduling), cost (resource scheduling) and quality. Therefore we can say that Project Management is a strategic competency of any organisation, and it can be defined as the set of knowledge, skills and techniques that allow for efficient and effective execution of project (PMI, 2009).

1.3 Strategy
We talked about the strategic value of Project Management, so let us step back for a moment and define what we mean by Strategy. Strategy is the plan that integrates the organisations goals with a set of specific actions and its policies, to create a coherent approach to the project (Quinn, 1998). It defines the long-term 1|12

direction of any organisation (Johnson et al., 2011), as the results of decisions taken at planning and operational phase. Strategy can be also thought as the design process in which managers analyse and evaluate the possible options to assess and establish the position of an organisation for its future (Johnson et al., 2011).

1.4 Structure
The Structure of an organisation is what defines the relative position between its members, their relationships and responsibilities. For this reason it also impacts onto the chain of communication and information flow (Johnson et al., 2011). In this respect, designing the organisations structure also influences its strategy. There are different general types of structure which a manager can choose from, some put emphasis on functional specialism, others on business unit. Each organisational structure has its own advantages and disadvantages, the most common structures are (Johnson et al., 2011): Functional (figure 1.4.1) Multidivisional (figure 1.4.2) Matrix (figure 1.4.3) Multinational (combines local responsiveness with high global coordination) Project-based (teams are created, undertake the work and then dissolved)

The tasks and roles of project management can also be identified by looking at the structure itself, and although this is not enough to guarantee the success of any project, if the structure is well designed to meet the requirements of the project, it will provide a good start (Walker, 2007).

2|12

3|12

1.5 System
As we just saw, structure is a key factor of a successful organisation, but structure alone is not enough. An organisation needs to be supported by formal and informal Organisational Systems, what gives a project manager control over the project. If Structures are like the bones in a body, Systems are the muscles that control how things move (Johnson et al., 2011), and those Systems are what actually define how the parts interact with each other. A system, in our context, has five important features (Jenkins and Youle, 1968): It is a collection of people and machines It can be broken down to constituting and communicating sub-systems Each system is likely to be itself part of a larger system It needs to have an objective or purpose To be efficient it must be strategically designed to pursue best practices

The types of system we are interested to study are Open and Dynamics, which means they are greatly affected by Changes in the Environment in which they operate (Walker, 2007). A Project Plan cannot be written on stone, it must be Flexible and Dynamic to be updated whenever needed. Project managers must therefore be able to account for, detect and analyse such changes in order to bring a project to success.

1.6 Complexity and Innovation

What makes system a complex system? Allen(2001) define complexity as the capacity of a system to respond to an environment in several different ways, which means they have embedded in themselves the possibility to evolve in different directions. To add complexity to complexity, it is known that if an organisation wants to prosper in the longterm, it must continue evolving and improving upon itself, generating Innovation to renew the current state of affairs, even through conflict sometime, gathering that positive energy to drive the organisation forward. This obviously is reflected in the way managers should think about planning and leading organisations (Walker, 2007). Industrial firms are acting more and more as Complex Systems, requiring increasing amount of Innovation (Jenkins and Youle, 1968), and for example, in the specific case of Construction Firms, this complexity is both technological, due to high specialisation, and also given by the complex environment they operate in(Walker, 2007). The number of specialists involved in the decision making processes are a possible indicator of such degree of complexity (Johnson et al., 2011).

4|12

2. System Approach
2.1 Science and Technology in Project Management
This is the century where science and technology are changing the world at a pace that has never been experienced before. Their influence is pervading our daily life and also the way we work as professionals. Urban developments, Space exploration, Medical Care, Environmental Challenges, are all examples of extremely complex problems that we are facing in these times (Ramo, 1998). So far science and technology have managed to bring them all forward, so why not to use that potential to also attempt to solve some of the open questions we are still facing in the field of project management. Cost and schedule overruns are badly affecting projects because Mangers are either looking to the projects as static entities, or they are only focused on fixing some part of those problems. Instead, Projects are Complex dynamic systems (Lyneis et al., 2001), where one individual cannot mentally grasp all its aspects, therefore it is evident the need of breaking them down into sub-systems in order to be understood and managed effectively (Jenkins and Youle, 1968). Although there are very many different factors that can influence projects along their lifecycle, certain methods exist to help managers to forecast and predict some of the potential future issues that could have an impact on the projects, allowing Managers to have some degree of control over them (Johnson et al., 2011). There is an intellectual approach amongst those methods, which evolved to assemble science and technology to tackle complex problems and it is called System Approach. It requires technological and non-technological aspects to be analysed together in a rational and logical way (Ramo, 1998).

2.2 What is the System Approach?

The System Approach is composed of two parts (Kefalas, 2011): System Thinking System Modelling

System Thinking provides the theory for understanding complex systems by analysing how its constituting parts interact with each other. System Modelling, on the other hand, provides the tools to simulate, test, and predict the behaviour of such systems. System thinking derived from the study of complex organisational entities in subjects such as biology, economics, sociology and engineering (Morris, 2004). It has its origins in the late 1920s and 30s when biologists discovered how living organisms interact with, and control, their environment, and physiologists observed how the human mind organises sensory data. Both the mind and the living organisms are examples of complex Open Systems, composed by several different elements, which need adaptation to a changing environment (Morris, 2008). 5|12

System Approach also looks at projects as complex Open Systems and brings the experience learned from the aforementioned areas of study to the field of Project Management.

2.3 What does System Approach provide?

Nowadays Project Management is facing with increasingly complex projects. Clients are more market-aware thanks to technology and the media, and so to differentiate themselves from their competitors, or simply to achieve something new, they often require a certain degree of innovation to be put into their projects, which in terms makes them even more complicated. System Approach, according to one of its contributors, Simon Ramo (1998), concentrates on the analysis and design of complex entities as a whole, not as just the sum of its own components. So this approach suggests looking at problems from a wider perspective, considering how all the parameters interact and communicate with one another, and ultimately how we can coordinate them to solve the overall multifaceted problems that managers are facing. The approach includes use of sophisticated techniques for assembling and processing the necessary data, comparing alternative approaches as to their relative benefits and shortcomings, making sensible compromises, producing quantitative analyses and predictions where they are appropriate, seeking out judgments from experience of the past, and introducing creative innovations where they are indicated. (Ramo, 1998) Those quantitative analysis and predictions rely on the use of computer models, which provide both a useful starting point for Managers to plan ahead by identifying main directions for their projects, and assist them in leading their development.

2.4 Why System Approach?

Complex development projects are highly non-linear feedback systems and have proven extremely difcult to manage successfully using traditional tools alone. (Lyneis et al., 2001). Using system dynamics models can help the Project Manager to design structures, schedule for resources, evaluate overall profitability and risks, implement measurement and reward systems and also learn from previous experiences. Project Managers during the planning stage should build a model of the organisation, and use all the existing information to try to predict how the project is likely to evolve. All this work in the first stage will improve the chances to achieve the project goals. The process is most effective when the modelling is actually carried out using computer simulations, although this requires the organisation to make use of expert technical knowledge of dynamic systems. This systematic preliminary study can help Project Managers to shape the organisation they will need, and what is more, during the course of the project itself, when any issues arise, it provides a tool to analyse their causes, and understand what needs to be fixed, and more importantly, how the required correction will affect the rest of the organisation. 6|12

System Approach therefore brings discipline to the firm, and helps the tasks to run in an orderly fashion. It also promotes personal involvement of every member of the organisation, making them not only responsible for their own specific role, but also aware of how their role is part of the overall plot, enhancing the flow of information through all the different parts, effectively lead to more cooperation and therefore more efficiency (Jenkins and Youle, 1968). It also allows Managers to stand back, take a fresh look at the system, to then adjust or redesign objectives, structures, and so on, whenever felt needed (Jenkins and Youle, 1968). If the System Approach is professionally applied, it should greatly improve our ability to make better decisions on how to allocate our resources (Ramo, 1998) to succeed in a project.

7|12

3. Beyond System Approach

3.1 Evolution of organisational approaches
There are many different approaches to management in the relevant literature, where different authors are classifying them in a different way. Walker (2007) makes the point that classifying organisational approaches is inherently complicated because there is no clear separation between them, instead, they rather evolve from one another, over time. However, the common theme that links them all together is that these methods are evolving to always answer to new requirements, combining new findings and experiences from synergic fields. According to Mullins (2007), main approaches can be listed and described as below: The Classical Approach The Behavioural Approach The Systems Approach The Contingency Approach Post Modernism

The Classical Approach looks at an organisation in terms of its purpose and formal structure. Emphasis is on the planning and division of specialised work, a clear definition of responsibilities, with a formal and hierarchical organisation of relationships between the parts (Mullins, 2007). This was seen as too formal and rigid, the poor cooperation within an organisation was to be blamed for low levels of productivity. The need for better human and social interpersonal relationships was suggested by the Behavioural Approach (called also Human Relations Approach) as an answer to that (Mullins, 2007). The System Approach, built on top of what was called Socio-Technical system, was trying to combine strengths of the first two approaches, and as it has been more extensively presented in Section 2, great emphasis is put here on the organisation as a whole, and at the interaction of its parts (Mullins, 2007). After that, what is known as Contingency Approach is proposed as an extension of the framework provided by System Approach itself. This method focuses on the fact that different parts of the systems are dealing with different parts of the overall environment, and since these subenvironments can be characterised by different dynamics, the communications and interrelations between those parts are also differently affected (Walker, 2007). In figure 3.1 we can see an overview of all the approaches to management mentioned so far.

8|12

A newer approach is the so-called Post-Modernism. Post-Modern Organisations are the result of the Information Revolution and the highly technological and fast paced society we live in. Technological determinism, structural exibility, premised on niches, multi skilled jobs marked by a lack of demarcation, and more complex employment relationships (Mullins, 2007)are its defining characteristics. The Post-Modern Approach insists on the importance of higher flexibility in order to adapt to a fast changing environment, and rejects the rigidity of traditional System Approaches. Fluid and freeflowing structures are the basis of such new organisations. It questions the fundamental possibility of a complete body of management knowledge (Mullins, 2007) and instead moves the attention to the need of an organisation to sort of match the dynamics of the environment it operates in.

3.2 Project Management: Science and Art of Relationship

It has been argued that the study of structures in organisations and management is steadily moving towards a more scientific approach to problem solving. Management Sciences are growing and proposing new approaches to help Managers analysing complex projects, and offer tools to direct and optimise them (Mullins, 2007). Altogether, Science and Technology are rooting themselves deeper into a broader Theory of Management, and this trend has been clear in the past century. On the other hand, in his book, Miner (1980) argues that, even though we shall acknowledge that trend, we do not have enough research to support that the entire field of Management should fully become a science, neglecting its philosophical and sociological aspects. Handy (2006) also supports Miners opinion: If there were such a thing as Management Science, presumably there would be scientic laws and rules. I was to be grievously disappointed. I read endless hypotheses that tried to explain why people and organisations behaved the way they did but no proof . . . Managing a business, or any organisation, I came to see was more practical art than applied science.

9|12

Despite of all the scientific inputs to the field, management lacks certainty about results and human behaviour cannot be predicted. For these reasons, it is not likely that Management could ever become a pure science (Kumar and Sharma, 2000). On the other hand, the human being is still the central part of all the relationships within any organisation or project. Technological tools and frameworks can greatly assist a Manager to create the most informed plans, to develop projects along the most suitable routes and to adapt them to the changing environments when it is needed, but in the end, it is a person that will stand the ground and will make those decisions. Building models to see how parts are connected together, and how they should function accordingly, is a good step to take, but it is not the whole story. Managers should focus also on the actual quality of those links, on how healthy are those connections between the parts. An effort should be made in the direction of understanding how well people can work together, and that is something that can be managed. This is the proposal of the so called Relationship Approach, which promise to bring better results over a purely scientific approach to management (Pryke and Smyth, 2006).

10 | 1 2

4. Conclusions
Rationality is embedded in our human psyche, in our systems of education, in our world (Johnson et al., 2011). Science and Technology promise to lead us to uncover an ever increasing number of challenges we are facing, in every direction and field. The field of Project Management makes no exception. The System Approach to Project Management learns from the scientific world how to structure complex organisations to tackle complex problems, formulating hypothesis, building models to test them, everything to help managers to plan and carry out their mission on the project (Morris, 2004). Throughout the years, several schools of thought have formulated different approaches on how to help managers in those tasks, each of them answering questions that were emerging from the practical experience of managers on the field. The bottom line is, if a project is complex, especially if it involves some innovation, it does require a structured framework to allow Managers to effectively understand them, to plan a strategy to tackle them, and to be able to understand how to adapt the strategy during the operations when necessary. The System Approach represent the first of such frameworks that implements both Scientific and Social know-how to address those questions. It is not the only framework though, in fact System Approach is the basic one on which other have evolved to include some of the more up-to-date expertise to face a changing work environment, and ultimately a changing society. It is nevertheless clear how System Approach represent the starting point of these modern Scientific and Sociological approaches to project management, and for this reason it is still relevant nowadays to talk about it. Especially valuable to be able to plan a flexible and complex answer to complex problems. The right procedure is to apply the systems approach competently to complex problems, seek to get the facts, use the analytical tools where they apply, and add wisdom and flexibility of choice to the decision makers who should inject, for integration with the rest, the best assumptions about the nonquantitative factors that their unfettered and enhanced judgments will permit (Ramo, 1998). We can conclude that Management is an art of relationships as well as a science. It is told to be the youngest of sciences and the oldest of arts and in this synergy it is to be found the right combination for truly successful approaches to management, and ultimately to successful human enterprises.

11 | 1 2

References
Allen P.M., A complex systems approach to learning in adaptive networks, International journal of innovation management, 2001 Arun Kumar and Rachana Sharma, "Principles of Business Management", 2000 Asterios G. Stell Kefalas, On Systems Thinking and the Systems Approach, World Futures: The Journal of Global Education, 2011 Business Dictionary: businessdictionary.com Gerry Johnson, Richard Whittington and Kevan Scholes, Exploring Strategy 9th Edition, 2011 G. M. Jenkins and P. V. Youle, A systems approach to Management Journal of the Operational Research Society, 1968 Handy, C. Myself and Other More Important Matters, William Heinemann, p. 61, 2006 James M. Lyneis, Kenneth G. Cooper and Sharon A. Els, Strategic management of complex projects: a case study using system dynamics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 2001 Miner, Theories of Organizational Behaviour, 1980 Peter Morris, Science, objective knowledge, and the theory of project management, 2004 Peter Morris, Managing Project Interfaces-Key Points for Project Success, Ch.2, 2008 Laurie J. Mullins, Management and organisational behaviour, Pearson, 8th edition, 2007 Project Management Institute, A guide to Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK), 2009 Stephen Pryke and Hedley Smyth, The Management of Complex Projects a relationship approach, 2006 Quinn J. B., Strategies for Change The strategy process: Revised European Edition, 1998 Simon Ramo, and Robin K. St.Clair, The Systems Approach, 1998 Anthony Walker, Project Management in Construction, 2007

12 | 1 2