ElCraftDeLosProyectos.pdf

8/22/2019 ElCraftDeLosProyectos.pdf

1/16

The craft of project shapingCharles Smith

Project Craft, Knutsford, UK, andMark Winter

Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to look closely at the actuality of project formation to investigate theperformance of project shaping those acts performed by individuals to make that form of sensethat constitutes a new project, and to propose a framework for mapping the skills of those individualswho are directly involved in shaping projects.

Design/methodology/approach The paper uses a sensemaking approach from illustrative

narratives in order to propose a model of how a project outcome is shaped. The analysis is based onthinking that emerged from the Rethinking Project Management Network and other academiccommunities.

Findings Significant factors in project formation are: the timing of the conversion of work intocontrolled project form (the control model of projects), the role of factional interests and powerstructures (tribal power), the alignment of project scope with a need for transformation (transformationand value), the fast production of tangibles such as project mandates that embody the projectessentials (enacted reality), and responsiveness to the dynamics of the wider social context (externaldynamics peripety).

Research limitations/implications It is apparent that the process of project formation, and theshape each project takes, is highly dependent on the actions of key individuals (shapers volition).There is further scope for expanding the understanding, within the structure of the framework, of thefull array of activities performed by individuals in action as project shapers.

Practical implications The framework developed is of immediate value to those individuals whouse their skills to mould a project, providing a conceptual basis they can use to learn and extend theirskills.

Originality/value Much of the interest to date in project formation has focused on instrumentalmanagerial practices of governance. This paper focuses on lessons to be learned from the actuality ofproject formation the conversion of work in organisations from a muddle of ambiguity andcomplexity into that particular form of cohesion and accepted sense that is a defined project orprogramme.

Keywords Project management, Skills, Task-centred leadership

Paper type Research paper

Background context

In recent years, there has been an increasing recognition of the importance of the frontend of projects to project success. For projects, to be successful, they must be soundlybased; conversely, projects that fail have the seeds of their failure implanted from theoutset. In this paper, we examine some examples of project formation to extract thefactors that are crucial to that critical phase of a project. We then develop a frameworkfor understanding the skills associated with the shaping of projects, and conceptualisethese skills in terms of the craft of a hypothetical individual the project shaper.Finally, we outline some principles for addressing the development of this craft.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1753-8378.htm

IJMPB3,1

46

Received 4 August 2009Accepted 18 September2009

International Journal of Managing

Projects in Business

Vol. 3 No. 1, 2010

pp. 46-60

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

1753-8378

DOI 10.1108/17538371011014026


2/16

We locate our analysis within a perspective of learning from actuality, i.e. researchas empirical analysis of lived experience (Cicmil, 2006). We base our analysis on theauthors experience as organisers of the Rethinking Project Management (RPM)Network. This research network, which ran from 2004 to 2006, was a group inquiry

process that interrogated current theoretical perspectives and emerging practices, todevelop insights into project management practices. The principal output from thisnetwork is presented in a series of papers (Maylor, 2006). The main conclusions arisingfrom the network are set out in Winter et al. (2006b), and its processes of inquiry andlearning in Winter et al. (2006a). The network conclusions have been encapsulated infive directions for future research, which will be referenced in our discussions and so,for convenience, are briefly stated here:

(1) From the lifecycle model of projects and project management towardstheories of complexity of projects and project management.

(2) From projects as instrumental processes towards projects as social processes.

(3) From product creation as the prime focus towards value creation as the prime

focus.

(4) From n arrow c on cep tu ali sation of p roje ct s t owards b road erconceptualisation of projects.

(5) From practitioners as trained technicians towards practitioners as reflectivepractitioners.

The thinking of the RPM Network evolved in response to a range of inputs, mainly inthe form of narrated stories, from practitioners. It is through the interrogation of suchstories that innovative explanations and frameworks for understanding projects andtheir management can be developed, taking us beyond the concepts of the projectlife-cycle model currently central to mainstream project management thinking.

This wider thinking will also enable us to develop our understanding of thecapabilities of expert practitioners. The need is to go beyond the toolkit skills embodiedin published project management standards, to consider expertise in the project fieldfrom the perspective of the reflective practitioner, as defined by Schon (1983).

Project formationIn this paper, we investigate the capabilities of reflective practitioners engaged in theformation of projects. The front-end has long been recognised as an area critical toproject success, for example, Morris (1994) has advocated a fundamental change ofemphasis within the project profession, from project management to themanagement of projects. To achieve success, we must first ensure we are not merelymanaging projects right, but also managing the right projects. Concerning the nature of

success, there has been much recent work on widening the criteria of success beyondthe traditional time, cost, quality model, for example Khazanchi and Reich (2008). In thispaper, we follow the lead of the RPM Network and consider success in terms of thecreation of value and benefit to different stakeholders, which can be financial and/ornon-financial value depending on the nature of the project (Network Direction 3). In thiscontext, rightness can be considered as being concerned with the alignment of aproject with strategic aims, the delivery of something that will create the desired value,but it is also concerned with viability: the possession of realistic aims, resources,

The craft oproject shapin

4


3/16

funding and support, etc. There is good evidence, for example Williams (2007) andWilliams et al. (2009), that projects that fail have the seeds of their failure a deficiencyin their viability implanted from the outset.

However, in the organisational environment, much of the recent interest in getting

to grips with the management of projects has been focused on the performance ofgovernance. From this perspective, to avoid failing projects we must prevent their

birth, weeding out those projects that do not adequately address strategic aims, anddestroying the seeds of failure before they can germinate. This is a gate-keeping or

stage gating philosophy, in which those responsible for governance inspect arrivals atthe gate, and perform a policing function to determine what shall be permitted to pass

through, and what shall be prevented from passing (Cooper, 2005; Office ofGovernment Commerce, 2007). Its focus is on the exercise of managerial power, at

project initiation, or perhaps more accurately at the moment when the demand arisesfor significant investment: of money, resources or commitment. Its concern is directed

towards corporate ends: the protection of investment.

Our intention in this paper has a different purpose, which is to look more closely atthose complex and messy social processes that lead to a particular project beingproposed. Our concern carries with it an increased awareness of projects as sociallyconstructed entities. Rather than being pre-existing objects to be subjected to the

instrumental techniques of conventional project management, they are created andshaped by individual players in the workplace. In the language of Schons

epistemology of practice, the creation and shaping of a project is a complex stream ofreflection-in-action and the general outcome of this process is always a constructed

reality as Schon (1987) explains in the following extract:

[. . .] underlying this view of the practitioners reflection-in-action is a constructionistview ofthe reality with which the practitioner deals a view that leads us to see the practitioner as

constructing situations in practice, [. . .

] In the constructionist view, our perceptions,appreciations, and beliefs are rooted in worlds of our making that we come to acceptas reality.

As well as being grounded in Schons work on the reflective practitioner, our

perspective is also based on the work of Weick (1995), where we consider projects asoutcomes of organisational sensemaking. In this context, sensemaking should not be

confused with a rather simplistic, and perhaps unhelpful, belief that individuals inorganisations merely make sense of the environment in which they find themselves.Weick in fact outlines seven crucial properties of sensemaking grounded in identity

construction, retrospective, enactive of sensible environments, social, ongoing, focusedon and by extracted cues, and driven by plausibility rather than accuracy which, as

we shall see, are highly pertinent to the social process of project formation.

In summary, our aim is to investigate the performance of project shaping thoseacts performed by individuals to make that form of sense that constitutes a newproject. We shall then propose a six-element framework for naming and framing the

skills of those individuals who are expert at shaping projects, conceptualising their

craft in terms of a hypothetical project shaper the person or persons who determinethe form a particular project will take. We shall also discuss how we might encourageand enhance the development of these skills in preparing such people the project

shapers for the world of projects.

IJMPB3,1

48


4/16

MethodologyTo present our arguments, we have used a sample of three project narratives. Thesehave been selected from stories originally presented to the RPM and to a series ofworkshops in 2003 and 2004 under the Making Projects Critical (MPC) umbrella

(Hodgson and Cicmil, 2006). Our analysis draws heavily on that of the RPM Network,where the stories were presented to the academic audience and then subjected tochallenge and discussion. Note that the presentations themselves were not recorded,and the narratives presented below are only a brief summary of the original accounts. Itis the ideas emerging from the workshop discussions, recorded in the network interimreports, that have provided the material for our analysis. The three narratives presentedhere have been selected from the many presentations on the basis of their potential toillustrate our chosen topic of interest in this paper that of project formation.

We have then taken the issues apparent in these narratives and found they can beusefully made sense of through a six-element framework: the conversion of work intocontrolled project form (the control model of projects), the role of factional interests andpower structures (tribal power), the alignment of project scope with a need for

transformation (transformation and value), the fast production of tangibles thatembody the project essentials (enacted reality), and responsiveness to the dynamics ofthe wider social context (external dynamics peripety).

The terminology for these framework labels will be explained and exemplified laterin this paper. The terminology is also defined and adopted by Smith (2007).

Illustrative project narratives and observationsThe stories presented here are researcher reports, summarised with sufficient contentto expose the issues, and with names and specific details removed to preserveanonymity.

Project narrative 1: Bernard

Bernard works for a large multi-national manufacturing company with facilities in the UKand elsewhere. He calls himself a project manager, but disclaims any interest in the bookversion, epitomised by the company project management manual, which is about projectsthat already exist. He describes his job as being to make projects to get them up andrunning in a highly complex environment.

Not only is the company multi-national but their products are multi-national, componentmanufacture and assembly taking place in different countries. They have amulti-dimensional matrix system of management: national management, functionalmanagement, product management, client management, etc. so some people have two,three or four bosses.

The need for a new project usually comes from the customer teams, who have identifiedchanges to a product to keep clients happy. Bernard then has to negotiate the projectspecification with everyone else. He is concerned to address client needs and get everyone on

board, because if people are against some facet of the project, their opposition will sap theproject energy and it will not succeed.

To create effective projects, Bernard seeks out those with influence, supporters of theproject and potential blockers, and then talks to them to find the limits to what they canaccept as a project. Decisions are always made by consensus; the project manager does notactually make any. He works through personal influence, and for that it is his credibility thatcounts not his place in the hierarchy.

The whole process is time-consuming because it needs a lot of personal interaction withevery party, talking to people face-to-face to find out what is on their minds and to understand


49


5/16

their position. They have meetings galore, large and chaotic, which can sometimes go on fordays. They cannot leave unfinished business because critical information would be missed,and decisions would not hold.

ForBernard, the creation of sound projects is not to do with manuals and procedures. Project

formation is concerned with getting everyone on board. He is particularly concerned thatopposition will sap the project energy. The aim is to create projects in which everyone isplaying together, projects with drumbeat.

In summary, we see here that project shaping is essentially a human and socialprocess, developing a project that makes sense to the various groups who have interest(and the power to damage) his project. Now consider our second example.

Project narrative 2: Matthew

Matthew was asked to take over a government-sponsored project that had been going forabout a year out of its two-year programme. He had never done any project management, butthis job was thrust upon him. He took it as a challenge, and in the few weeks before he started

he swotted up the standard methodology prescribed for the project.The job was basically about setting up a pilot IT facility that would enable people invarious agencies to share information. His task was to deliver this pilot, something thatworks, within a year.

When he got into the job, however, he was taken aback by the chaotic state of the work.There was no business case, no single clear vision, and no specification of the requirements.People working on the project were going their own ways, inventing their own ideas of how itwould work. There was no way this uncoordinated activity could lead to a meaningful trialthat could be completed by the promised deadline. To rectify this state of affairs, he set somevery simple priorities: to agree the content of the project and to try to do something useful. Hehammered out a project scope something properly defined that could be achieved in thetime allowed and set up project control mechanisms: budgets, milestones, reportingarrangements, a risk log, monthly reviews. He found the use of a recognised standard was

immensely valuable, giving him authority to bring the parties into line.The deadline was achieved, with a demonstration system up and running, and a reportproduced, with only days to spare.

In retrospect, Matthew recognised that the users, the people who would operate the newsystem, were not happy that their inventive ideas had been reduced to this rather limitedproject scope; he should have involved them earlier in decisions. He also recognised that hiscontact with the project sponsor had been erratic, and consequently there was somedissatisfaction with the product. But, overall, he was pleased that he had shown what projectmanagement canachieve in a difficult situation, and moreover he had shown that he could do it.

He also acknowledged that the story he told was probably unfair to his predecessor, givingthe impression he had left everything in a mess. In fact, he had been the person with theimagination and foresight to conceive the whole idea and had made it happen. When Matthewtook over the project, the people were already overwhelmingly committed to its success.

In summary, this is a story of order created from chaos, from a creative, diverse,emergent strategy towards a project that is defined, possible, time-limited, andcontrolled , i.e. a project that can be delivered to a deadline. It is also, in principle,directed towards a social transformation, but we see that the objective was distorted bythe need to shape a project that accorded with conventional managerial norms.

In terms of project shaping, we see the importance of the volition and energy of onekey individual the leader and face of the project. As in the previous case, he is closelyengaged in a complex social world. We can also note the power he acquires through

IJMPB3,1

50


6/16

generating project artefacts specifications, plans and prototypes and through themcreating his own identity as a recognised control-orientated project manager.

Project narrative 3: Robert

Robert wasseconded into the pensions office of a large corporationto actas project manager forthe introduction of a new IT system for administration. This would allow the operation to behandled with fewer than half the existing staff, with better turn-round, better access toinformation and enormous cost savings. There was a project team already there when hearrived. It had two managers, who had already set out their plans and were ready to go. Theiraim, approved by the office executive, was to deliver a top-class administration system, andthrough it bring a new culture to the office. The project budget had been approved, but oncondition that the team would take on a professional project manager. Robert took this role andhis remit was to apply recognised project management techniques to deliver the new system.

However, Robert identified two major problems. The first was the scale of the ambition that therewas too much work to be done, within a tight timescale and using people who had notdone the work before so something would have to change if the completion date was to be

met. His second concern was that the executive appeared to have distanced themselves fromthe project. He decided to bridge that gap and get closer to the executive, and discovered theydid not really have confidence in the project. He also discovered there was another agenda, theimpending divestment of a large part of the company, and they needed Roberts projectcompleted so they could pass on a big part of the pension fund with that sale. None of this hadbeen mentioned in the project brief.

Roberts solution to these problems was to form an alliance with the director ofadministration and bring the divestment agenda to the foreground. Together, they struck outswathes of the project scope, optimising the new system to deal with the big financialtransactions and signing a reduced-scope contract with suppliers. The administrationsoftware, with its efficiency savings, which had been so important, was cut back, to the dismayof the administration and project team to whom this aspect had been central.

Although the change of direction had been painful, the scope was now feasible, and the

project was aligned with the primary interests of the executive. However, the project team feltthey had lost their ownership of the agenda, and were demoralised.

In summary, we find again that one of the determinants of project success is located inunderstanding the interests of social groups. These interests are diverse, but onegroup, that is concerned with the company divestment, has more tribal power than theothers. We also see that projects are vulnerable to forces for change, which an astuteproject manager should be able to read and anticipate.

Project shaping therefore continues throughout the life of the project, and includesactivities such as horizon scanning and recognising the options to hold or changecourse. In dealing with these options, the individual project manager is faced bydecisions of allegiance, remaining loyal to the existing project, or betraying the

project to new zones of power.

Making sense of the three example narratives a conceptual frameworkFrom the above examples, we can discern six important influences on the process ofproject formation (Figure 1).

The elements of this framework are described in the following subparagraphs andthe descriptions are illustrated by reference to occurrences in the example narratives.The relevance of the six elements to each of the narratives is then summarised in Table I.


5


7/16

Influence 1. The control model of projectsAll three examples illustrate a process of projectification, which hitherto is a termused by other researchers to refer to the projectification of society. For example,Hodgson and Cicmil (2006) refer to the growing colonisation of all quarters of life byproject-related principles, and (Midler, 1995) refers to the projectification of theorganisation, whereby the traditional functional organisation is replaced by aproject-based structure. In this paper, we extend the concept of projectification from

Figure 1.A framework for makingsense of project shaping

Tribal power

External dynamics

Peripety

Transformation

and value

The shaped

project

Control model

of projects

Enacted reality

Shapers' volition

Element ofshapingframework Narrative 1: Bernard Narrative 2: Matthew Narrative 3: Robert

Control modelof projects

Negotiated projectspecification

Hammered into linewith recognised projectmanagement standard

Existing project plan andrecognised projectmanagement techniques

Tribal power Complex organisation.Everyone on board

Interests of diverse ofdiverse agencies,sponsor, users supplanted by projectmanager

Two tribes:administrators andexecutive

Transformation

and value

Customer value. Making

sense to all parties

User and sponsor values

over-ridden. Lostcreativity

Transformation in

administrative processes,value to divestmentplans

Enacted reality Enacted in projectspecification

Enacted in approvedstandard projectdocumentation

Switch in plan enactedthrough new suppliercontract

Externaldynamics peripety

Attempts to pre-empt andhence avoid energy-sappingopposition

Project shape held forthis phase of the project

Shift in project scopethrough recognitionof new agenda

Shapers volition Speaker has role ascompany shaper

Speaker uses his powerto shape something thatworks

Speaker chooses torecognise new agendaand switch project scope

Table I.Application of shapingframework to illustrativenarratives

IJMPB3,1

52


8/16

these general forces to cover their local manifestation in the treatment of particularprojects or programmes of work. Work that is chaotic, being loosely defined anddistributed among many parties, is brought into, or projectified into, the orderedregime of the controlled project, having defined ends and defined tasks, and under the

control of the project manager.The players are seeking to shape a project embodiment that is compatible with the

principles of accountability. The managers wish is to make a commitment, to promisethat the project will be delivered on time, to specification, within budget, and to thatend they mould the project into a form in which it can be controlled and executed withreasonable confidence that it can be completed as intended.

However, we can also see that this process of projectification carries penalties. Wesee compromise (narrative 1) where diverse aims are coalesced into a single packagethat suits everyone. We see the destruction of creativity and initiative (narrative 2) inthe interests of producing something properly defined that could be achieved in thetime allowed. And we see useful valid endeavours over-ridden (narrative 3) by newmore powerful agenda.

Two opposing narratives can be identified. The project management narrative,reflecting the mission of the project management community, proclaims its mode ofworking as the ordered and reliable route through which organisations can alignresources and efforts to deliver strategies and promises. There is also a contrarynarrative, which portrays project management as a tyranny, destroying autonomy,initiative and creativity. However, rather than declare an allegiance to one narrative orthe other, as though they belong to two separate managerial factions, our preference isto recognise the importance of both views. There are times for focused and tightlycontrolled delivery of tangible products, and times for a more flexible and pragmaticmanagement approach. The timing of projectification can be crucial, to gain thebenefits of controlled delivery while minimising damage to creativity. This we express

through the mantra: beware premature projectification.We should also be wary of setting up a simplistic projectification dichotomy, asthough work must necessarily be free and uncontrolled or else brought within a rigidlycontrolled project domain. This is not the case. Of the RPM Networks proposed fivedirections for future research, the fourth, which recommends a shift in thinkingtowards a broader conceptualisation of projects, points our project shaping towardsrecognition of projects as having multiple purposes, not always pre-defined, and beingpermeable, contestable and open to renegotiation. Work does not proceed in eitherorder or disorder. There are many shades between.

Influence 2. Tribal powerProjects are formed in the social world. There is no single rationality that can be

deployed to design the optimum correct project. Projects emerge from the manoeuvresof diverse groups of people the tribal world of organisations having diverse agenda.

Sometimes, as for example, in the multinational enterprise described in narrative 1,power is diffuse, and projects are negotiated to find a form acceptable to many parties.Elsewhere, there are clear power imbalances. In narrative 2, the power of centralgovernment leads to the formation of a project that exemplifies the world ofgovernment targets, formulated in terms of what is possible within strict timescalelimits, over-riding the creative endeavours of the knowledgeable parties in the field.


5


9/16

In narrative 3, the original scope, established by the relatively powerlessadministration tribe, is over-ruled by the powerful agenda of corporate finance.

The impact of tribalism continues throughout the delivery of the project. Projectsdepend for their success on the energy of those involved in them. This can be deployed

in the interest of progress, or it can be diverted sapping the project energy intointertribal struggles. Our speaker in narrative 1 is aware of this danger, and isconcerned to avoid it from the start. In our other two examples, significant groups ofpeople are disenfranchised, and while continuing to work under their contractualobligations, withdraw their enthusiasm.

For a project to succeed, its conceptual shape at inception must take account of thismulti-tribe world. If not it is likely to be plagued by energy-sapping struggles. The aimof our project shaper must be to act as an expert player in this social world,endeavouring to facilitate and create, as in narrative 1, projects with drumbeat.

This shift in perspective is encapsulated in direction 2 (projects as social processes) ofthe recommendations of the RPM Network. It is also fundamental to Weicks properties of

sensemaking. Any analysis of project formation must take account of the social worldfrom which they emerge, and achieve an acceptable levelof plausibility forparties with adiverse range of interests. The assumption implicit in conventional project managementmethodology that there exists a unitary common purpose cannot be sustained.

Influence 3. Transformation and valueWhile mainstream project management is concerned with the delivery of tangibleoutputs, the speakers in our examples have, as their primary concern, objectives thatgo well beyond the immediate product delivery and into the realm of value. Innarrative 1, this is reflected overall in the laudable aim of greater client happiness, butwill presumably be embodied in more immediate and commercial value-driven aims in

specific projects. In narrative 2, there are two forms of value being sought. While thelonger term aim is to develop functional capabilities that will improve communicationsbetween government agencies, the more immediate aims are more mundane thedemonstration of competence and a working product (something that works). Innarrative 3, we see two competing concepts of value: the value of efficient working ofadministrators is over-taken by value in terms of the efficient divestment of parts of thecompany. In all narratives, the purpose of the projects is to drive some form oftransformation. The RPM Network research direction 3 points to this shift in emphasis.

In their review of the RPM Network conclusions in relation to the field of IT, Sauerand Reich (2009) recognise this shift, but go on to argue that the project managershould focus, head-down, on delivery; it is for others to harvest value by using theproduct delivered by the project. Our view, on the other hand, is that the project

manager has an ongoing interest in the value of a project, however it is defined.A failure to take value into account brings additional risk to the project, as it willinevitably alienate the tribes affected and drag the project into energy-sappingdisputes as noted in the previous section.

We should also note that in our second and third narratives the focus of our projectshaper on value opened up additional opportunities to reshape the project into a formthat was actually more likely to succeed. A head-down project manager would havefailed to jump these hurdles. It is therefore in the project managers own interest to

IJMPB3,1

54


10/16

engage with the relevant tribes and understand their concepts of value, and to act toshape the project accordingly.

Influence 4. Enacted realityThe definition of each project emerges from a complex human and social environment,but because this world is unstable a project is itself also inherently lacking in stability.Any version of the project scope can be open to challenge as different groupsmanoeuvre to promote their tribal interests. Project progress, however, requires somedegree of stability of purpose, and this is achieved through enactment.

In the terms set out by Weick, our project shapers are acting as sensemakers,creating the project a clear and ordered form of organisational sense out of thechaos of complexity. However, it is not enough merely to agree, verbally, a form ofsense. Weick points to enactment as a key property of effective sensemaking.Individuals are active the I or the we who intentionally create new entities thatembody their preferred form of sense.

In the project context, to establish their projects as reality, the shapers must act tocreate artefacts that can be seen, inspected and queried, so the project has, associatedwith it, some incontrovertible facts that establish it as a stable and tangible entity.

In narrative 2, the project standards are seen as an important aid to enactment.The project manager produces and authorises standard documentation, and hencebrings legitimacy to the limited project scope he is imposing on the distributed, andpreviously creative, contributors to the project. In narrative 3, those seeking to changethe project scope do not enter into prolonged discussions, but they establish their newversion of project reality by signing a new contract, having reduced scope, with thesupplier, enacting the new project form through the artefact of the legal document.

These approaches, based on the legitimisation of key documents, arewell-established project enactment tactics. Other, and stronger, techniques are alsoavailable (although not evidenced in our small set of examples presented here) throughthe production of tangible hard objects: early production of software, models, etc.

Influence 5. External dynamics peripetyDespite efforts to achieve enacted stability, the project continues its course within asocial world that is continually changing. However, in practice, change is not steady andcontinuous. Projects experience periods of relative stability, when those involved maysuccessfully hold to a defined plan, which are interrupted by significant shifts in plan.

A useful perspective on these dynamics is the dramatic concept of peripety.This term was used by Aristotle to denote a point in the plot of a play when the arrival ofsome new information transforms our understanding of what is happening on the stage.

Engwall and Westling (2004) elaborate this concept in the context of developmentprojects, but it is relevant to other forms of project. In our examples, the projects innarratives 2 and 3 undergo a significant, and sudden, shift in strategy.

The significance of peripety is not merely that there has been some change infortune, a twist in the plot, or an untoward event. Something has appeared which leadsto a reframing of the understanding of all that has gone before. It is not only theoutcomes that are changed, but the questions that frame the project thinking and plans.In narrative 2, the project is re-aligned to respond to a new demand for something that


5


11/16

works, while in narrative 3 a new corporate financial agenda diverts, in its wake, theagenda of the project.

What does this mean for practitioners? Is peripety merely something that mayhappen to the project, something we hope to avoid but which will afflict us from time to

time, an unfortunate consequence of uncontrollable events?In fact, the project shaper can do better than succumb to this passive view. For

example, at significant moments in the internal life of a project (e.g. build up ofresources, first significant investment), it is also often more open to external influence.Experienced shapers will, at these times, go out of their way to seek out such externalmessages, believing it is better to receive them sooner rather than later when thedisruption could be worse. They will also recognise that there is a time to change course,and a time to persevere with the chosen route; a time to scour the horizon forapproaching messengers, and a time to plough onwards, focus on the work in hand, andshoot messengers on sight.

This view of the project shaper as an active participant in change again runscontrary to mainstream thinking, which often conceives the project manager as aneutral player, maintaining course until instructed otherwise. Weicks description ofsensemaking as ongoing reinforces this element of our framework. The expertpractitioner will continue to apply project-shaping skills throughout the life of a project.

Influence 6. Shapers volitionWhile mainstream project management approaches describe project formation instrictly impersonal terms, as vehicles for the delivery of organisational strategies, ourthree example narratives show that the highly personal matter of individual volition isa major determinant of the form a project eventually takes. It is this aspect of projectformation that leads us to the concept of the project shaper. For each project, thescope becomes what it is because of the strong action of an individual who chooses to

shape it in that way.Shapers must necessarily be constrained as to what is possible by the power

structures and strategies of the organisational world in which they operate, but it is alsoevident that the project form they establish is at the same time primarily designed to besupportive of their own identity development. In narrative 1, the project managerdisclaims hierarchical power, but it is his authority as a safe pair of hands thatempowers him to negotiate and act, and it is, in turn, this authority that he re-establisheseach time he sets up a consensual project. In narrative 2, the project is diverted from itscreative course to serve the immediate short-term interest of the project manager, to setout his credentials as a person who can deliver to a deadline, and hence establish hisreputation as a heroic project manager. The project manager in narrative 3 has yetanother agenda, in this case to position himself as an executive strategist, rejecting the

role of project technician assigned to him.It can thus be seen that in shaping a project, the shapers are at the same time

enacting themselves as organisational players: choosing allegiances, supporting theirpersonal agenda within the organisation, protecting their credibility and reputation,and, if failure is on the cards, manoeuvring themselves into winning positions.

The concept of project manager as shaper is at odds with mainstream proceduralnorms, which envisage two distinct and separate roles: that of the project manager,responsible for delivery of the project as specified, and that of the sponsor, responsible

IJMPB3,1

56


12/16

for strategy and direction. In their review of the RPM Network conclusions, Sauer andReich express their concern about this dilemma. They support the principle that projectmanagers should act creatively and innovate in pursuit of wider goals, but then notethat many of their interviewees are uncomfortable with this position, believing that the

project manager should concentrate exclusively on matters of immediate concern time, costs and deliverables. An expectation that a project manager should manoeuvre,as in narratives 2 and 3 above, will merely add to the load on his or her shoulders.

However, in the narratives, we have considered here, there is actually a strongconvergence of interests. It is the project managers who become aware of the widerneeds for redirection to create a viable project, and who then act to reshape theirprojects. Their own sense of self-preservation to avoid finding themselves in chargeof a mal-formed project is sufficient motivation. Once again, Weicks sensemakingmodel specifically his emphasis that sensemaking is founded in identityconstruction supports our position. It is inconceivable that an expert projectmanager would ignore their potential shaping role since this would be an abdication oftheir own identity construction.

Developing project shaping capabilitiesAs set out in research direction 5 put forward by the RPM Network, there are twodistinct levels of knowledge deployed in the management of projects. The firstconcerns the technical knowledge of detailed procedures and tools set out in projectmanagement manuals. In this paper, however, we are concerned with a differentknowledge level, that of the reflective practitioner, who can learn, operate and adapteffectively in complex project environments. Effective project shaping demandsan understanding of the project environment, learned through experience, intuition andthe pragmatic application of theory in practice. The practitioners in our narrativestudies did not acquire their shaping skills from textbooks, but through the

performance of managing. The textbook methods are merely resources, to be broughtin as needed to support a particular strategy of the moment (as for example in narrative2 where our shaper specifically wishes to bring diverse creative people under tightcontrol).

For the capabilities of the project shaper, we are concerned with expert action(Dreyfus and Dreyfus, 2005) rather than in teachable facts, and it is therefore clear thattraditional book and course approaches to learning are not appropriate. Crawford et al.(2006), drawing on experience from the RPM Network, point out that experiencedpractitioners can make significant advances in developing their knowledge andcapabilities though processes of reflective practice and experiential learning, and theyoutline some example approaches that might be followed to better understand andthereby enhance these forms of learning. It is in these directions that those wishing to

improve project-shaping capabilities, for themselves or their organisations, need to look.Walker et al. (2008) propose that the journey towards expertise can be enhanced

through the learning experience of collaborative research.Smith (2007) introduces the concept of the project shaper, and treats the capabilities

of a person fulfilling such a role as a subset of a wider category of reflective projectskills under the heading of ProjectCraft, which covers, in addition to shapers, the craftskills of project directors, strategists, transformation agents, project deliverers, and theproject priesthood (custodians of project management knowledge). Project


5


13/16

practitioners are variants of Schons (1983) reflective practitioners, faced withconfusing messes having no technical solution, and their methods of inquiry areessentially that of sensemaking, trial and error, intuition and muddling through.

As another example contribution towards developing and enriching the craft

capabilities of practitioners involved in projects, Winter and Szczepanek (2009)encourage a more pragmatic and reflective approach to working on projects, based onthe idea of deliberately seeing projects from multiple perspectives, exploring theinsights and implications which flow from these, and crafting appropriate actionstrategies in complex situations.

Finally, in the context of learning, we should re-affirm that we have chosen not toprescribe who, organisationally, we expect to acquire such capabilities. Mainstreamproject management practice is decidedly prescriptive in this respect. A projectsponsor is assigned the role of defining a project, and others shall follow. However,all organisations are populated by intelligent people, and all practitioners have thewherewithal to reflect on their practice, and many will have the opportunity to asserttheir rights to shape projects. Indeed, as we have noted, project managers by the natureof their task have an interest in shaping the object of their attention, the project, into aform having a reasonable prospect of a successful outcome.

Conclusions shaping sound projectsWe observed, in our introduction, that the formation of a project is critical to itssuccess. We have demonstrated here that the formation of sound projects depends onfar more than good gate-keeping governance. Projects emerge from the socio-politicalworld, and arrive at their organisational gates with a political agenda already attached.Smith (2007) describes the processes by which all manner of dubious projects misshapen and fraudulent can pass easily through such governance procedures. If asound project is to be established, those with an interest in its success need to recognise

the fundamentals of project shaping, and assert their presence by acting as shapers orby ensuring they have an effective agent shaping on their behalf.

In this paper, we have demonstrated the importance of effective project shaping forproject success. We have emphasised that projects are constructions, created throughthe agency of motivated individuals. We propose the concept of the project shaper toembody the activities of such individuals.

We have put forward a six-element framework that can be used by practitioners toconceptualise the craft of shaping, and to improve their awareness of how projects areactually formed, and thereby enhance their ability to reflect and learn from their ownexperience as shapers. This framework is also supported by research elsewhere, forexample, further consideration of Schons work would show a strong correlation withwhat he calls the craft of problem setting in messy, indeterminate situations; and

similarly with Weicks work there is an equivalence between the framework here andWeicks (1995) seven properties of sensemaking as shown by the following examples:tribal power social enacted reality enactive of sensible environments, externaldynamics peripety ongoing, shapers volition grounded in identity construction.Further consideration of these links, however, is beyond the scope of this paper. Not onlythis, the real world of projects embraces a far wider variety of project types and formsthan we have addressed here. There is great scope for expanding our understanding,within the structure of the framework, of the full array of activities performed by

IJMPB3,1

58


14/16

individuals in action as project shapers. However, this can only be achieved throughin-depth research into the actuality of projects. The considerations relevant to suchresearch, towards better understanding of practical action and lived experience, arediscussed by Cicmil et al. (2006). We hope that the arguments we have set out here,

promoting the central role of the project shaper and setting out a framework forunderstanding the activities of such an individual, can form a basis for such research.

References

Cicmil, S. (2006), Understanding project management practice through interpretive and criticalresearch perspectives, Project Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 27-37.

Cicmil, S., Williams, T., Thomas, J. and Hodgson, D. (2006), Rethinking project management:researching the actuality of projects,International Journal of Project Management.,Vol.24No. 8, pp. 675-86.

Cooper, R.G. (2005), Product Leadership: Pathways to Profitable Innovation, Basic Books,

New York, NY.Crawford, L., Morris, P., Thomas, J. and Winter, M. (2006), Practitioner development: from

trained technicians to reflective practitioners, International Journal of ProjectManagement, Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 722-33.

Dreyfus, H.L. and Dreyfus, S.E. (2005), Expertise in real world contexts, Organization Studies,Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 779-92.

Engwall, M. and Westling, G. (2004), Peripety in an R&D drama: capturing a turnaround inproject dynamics, Organization Studies., Vol. 25 No. 9, pp. 1557-78.

Hodgson, D. and Cicmil, S. (Eds) (2006), Making Projects Critical, Palgrave Macmillan,Basingstoke.

Khazanchi, D. and Reich, B.H. (2008), Achieving I.T. project success through control,

measurement, managing expectations, and top management support, InternationalJournal of Project Management., Vol. 26 No. 7, p. 699.

Maylor, H. (2006), Special issue on rethinking project management (EPSRC network2004-2006), International Journal of Project Management., Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 635-7.

Midler, C. (1995), Projectification of the firm: the Renault case, Scandinavian Journal ofManagement., Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 363-75.

Morris, P.W.G. (1994), The Management of Projects, Thomas Telford, London.

Office of Government Commerce (2007), Managing Successful Programmes, The StationaryOffice (TSO), London.

Sauer, C. and Reich, B.H. (2009), Rethinking IT project management: evidence of a new mindsetand its implications, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 27, pp. 182-93.

Schon, D. (1983), The Reflective Practitioner, Basic Books, New York, NY.Schon, D. (1987), Educating the Reflective Practitioner, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Smith, C. (2007), Making Sense of Project Realities: Theory, Practice and the Pursuit ofPerformance, Gower, Aldershot.

Walker, D.H.T., Cicmil, S., Thomas, J., Anbari, F.T. and Bredillet, C. (2008), Collaborativeacademic/practitioner research in project management: theory and models, International

Journal of Managing Projects in Business., Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 17-32.

Weick, K. (1995), Sensemaking in Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.


59


15/16

Williams, T. (2007), Post-project Reviews to Gain Effective Lessons Learned, Project ManagementInstitute, Newtown Square, PA.

Williams, T.M., Samset, K. and Sunnevag, K.J. (Eds) (2009), Making Essential Choices with ScantInformation Front-end Decision Making in Major Projects, Palgrave Macmillan,

Basingstoke.Winter, M. and Szczepanek, A. (2009), Images of Projects, Gower, Aldershot.

Winter, M., Smith, C., Cooke-Davies, T. and Cicmil, S. (2006a), The importance of processin rethinking project management: the story of a UK Government-funded researchnetwork, International Journal of Project Management., Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 650-62.

Winter, M., Smith, C., Morris, P.W.G. and Cicmil, S. (2006b), Directions for future research inproject management: the main findings of a UK government-funded research network,

International Journal of Project Management., Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 638-49.

Corresponding authorCharles Smith can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

IJMPB3,1

60


16/16

Reproducedwithpermissionof thecopyrightowner. Further reproductionprohibitedwithoutpermission.

ElCraftDeLosProyectos.pdf

Documents

Transcript of ElCraftDeLosProyectos.pdf