Chapter 4: Proposition of a Systemic and Dynamic Model to Design Lifelong Learning Structure - The Quest of the Missing Link between Men, Team, and Organizational Learning


Christophe N. Bredillet, D.Sc. UTS, ISGI Lille Graduate School of Management

Background

Strategy: Management of/by Projects, to Deal with Complexity and Irreversibility

For the past forty years, project management has become a well-accepted way to manage organizations. The field of project management has evolved from operational research techniques and tools to a discipline of management (Cleland 1994; Bredillet 1999). Many authors emphasize the evolution in the way to manage projects: "this book traces the development of the discipline of project management", writes Morris (1997). Project management becomes the way to implement corporate strategy (Turner 1993; Frame 1994) and to manage a company: " value is added by systematically implementing new projects—projects of all types, across the organization" (Dinsmore 1999). Management of projects—the way to manage projects within the same organization—(Morris 1997) and management by projects—projects as a way to organized the whole organization—(Gareis 1990; Dinsmore 1999) are both a good example of that tendency. To go further in the strategic issue, we can point out that strategic processes, in other words focused actions, implement strategy, defined in its dynamic dimension. These processes aim to modify the conditions of insertion of firms in their environment. Through them, resources and competencies are mobilized to create a competitive advantage and a source of value. As resources are easily shared by many organizations, competencies are the relevant driver. Thus, through processes or projects, past action is actualized as experience, present action reveals and proves competencies, and future action, discounted as a project, will generate and experiment with new competencies (Lorino and Tarondeau 1998). Lastly, projects are a form of organization that puts a company in relation to its environment. As projects are the vectors of the strategy (Grundy 1998), project management is a way to deal with the characteristics of the whole environment: complexity (Arcade 1998). change (Voropajev 1998), globalization, time, and competitiveness (Hauc 1998). Thus, with the help of project management, strategic management really becomes the management of irreversibility (Declerck and Debourse 1997), concentrating on the ecosystems project/company/context, operation/company/context, and their integrative management (Declerck, Debourse, and Navarre 1983).

Competencies: Source of Competitive Advantage and Creation of Value

Thus, competencies (both individual and organizational) are at the source of competitive advantage and creation of value: some research programs are working on this. For example, Lynn Crawford, directing the Project Management Competence Research Project, writes that "interest in project management competence stems from the very reasonable and widely held assumption that if people who manage and work on projects are competent, they will perform effectively and that this will lead to successful projects and successful organizations" (Crawford 1998). The Project Management Institute (PMI ) Standards Program project "Project Manager Competencies" puts forward in the project overview that "The Project Manager Competency Framework will be based on the premise that competencies have an impact on outcomes indicative of effective performance. The degree or extent of this impact is expected to vary depending on certain contingencies (such as project types and characteristics). At a more specific level, the framework will identify and define some of the key dimensions of effective performance, the competencies that likely impact performance, and the contingencies likely to influence the extent to which a particular competency has an impact on performance." These projects and the development of professional certifications contradict former findings. For example, Pinto and Prescott (1988) conclude that the "personnel factor", even if designated in theoretical literature as a crucial factor in project efficiency, is a marginal variable for project success at any of the four project life cycles. For a criticism of their findings, see Belout 1998. A working paper (Turner 1998) shows the influence of the project managers on value of shares: "Projects are undertaken to add value to the sponsoring organization. In the private sector this ultimately means increasing the value of shares to the holders of equity in the company." But performance also comes from the maturity of an organization to deal with projects, especially through the aspects of learning. The Organizational Project Management Maturity (OPM3) project with the PMI Standards Program and others papers (Remy 1997; Saures 1998; Fincher et al. 1997) explore the relations between maturity of the organizations and success of the projects. The issue is important in a context of the globalization of the profession (Curling 1998).

Project Management: A Knowledge Field Not That Clear

To develop competencies, a knowledge field is needed. But both in academia and the business world, the field of project management is not clearly defined. To that, there are numerous reasons: the field evolves in breadth and in depth. In breadth, embracing information systems, human resources management, change management, strategic management, economic value management, psychology, management of technology, quality, sociology, multicultural management, systems thinking, knowledge management, organizational learning, team management, temporary group, systems engineering, and so on. In depth, going further into cost engineering, finance, specific aspects of risk management, earned value management, scheduling methods, resources allocation, project life cycle, processes, studying phases, types of projects, projects portfolio management, and so on. Over the last twenty years the profession has been working on its recognition and standards; certifications arose from professional associations. They work on the definition of the field and on the recognition of project management as a profession. Definitions of standards, bodies of knowledge (broad range of knowledge that the discipline encompasses plus some behavioral characteristics), certification and assessment of project management competence models and maturity models, and best practices reflect this trend (Toney and Powers 1997; Hobbs and Miller 1998; Hobbs 1997; Gareis 1997; PROJECT 2000 1998).

We can identify three main points of view among the attempt to clarify the field (International Project Management Association [IPMA] GWG 1999). A first one relates primarily to the management of projects (International Organization for Standardization [ISO] 10006, A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge [PMBOK Guide]). A second one is designed primarily as a standard and guideline to define the work of the project management personnel and a basis for the assessment of the project management competence of people. The IPMA Competence Baseline (ICB) from IPMA and the Australian National Competency Standards for Project Management (ANCSPM) are good examples, albeit different in their perspectives and coverage (Turner 2000a; 2000b). A third one is directed at the project management practices of organizations (such as the current PMI OPM3 project mentioned previously).

One main point is the ongoing adaptation of the different standards according to the change in project management. The theory of conventions can enlighten this, as socioeconomical constructs (Gomez 1994), standards are the result of negotiation enabling reduction of complexity and uncertainty in the relations between the stakeholders of projects. But since the global evolution of the environment will change the bases of the negotiation, the standards need to evolve in a dynamic perspective.

On the other hand, numbers of books and papers give both depth and breadth to points of view across several dimensions: technical, methodological, and managerial. They aim to fill a long-standing need for a comprehensive, unified, and practical description of the field (Archibald 1992; Forsberg and Mooz 1996; Harrison 1992; Cleland 1994; Kerzner 2000; Pinto 1998; Dinsmore 1993; Kerzner 1997). But the quest for key success factors, best practices, and other "best ways" doesn't prevent failures and waste of money. The present development of bodies of knowledge and the reengineering of certifications show that the current situation is not that clear and a number of practices are hindering growth and quality of the field.

Thus, we have to note that:

  1. Project management is becoming the way to manage the development of organizations.

  2. Competencies and learning (both individual and organizational) are the source of competitive advantage and of the creation of value (Stata 1989; de Geus 1988).

  3. The project management knowledge field is not that clear because it evolves in depth and breadth, so that standards, as social constructs, need ongoing adjustment.

Considering the definition, the assessment, the development of competencies, and the certification processes, we have to note that they are all built from standards both in a synchronic and diachronic perspective. There is a synchronic perspective because they need to answer to "hic et nunc" requirements for current projects. And, there is a diachronic perspective because the development of competencies, both for individuals and for organizations (developing maturity implies time), takes time and it is a necessary condition for future performance to forecast and anticipate the needs for future projects. For example, people who want to pass the different degrees of the IPMA Certification have to consider time. According to the development of their ability to manager bigger and more complex projects, they will be able to get a higher recognition. Some companies like IBM Global Services, Bull, or Unisys use this process (appropriate degree of certification plus continuous education) to manage the competencies (and the career) of their project managers.

It is unfortunately not a sufficient condition because the future is not predictable. That means the capacities to deal with uncertainty and risk are fundamental. And the link(s) between individual competencies, team competencies, and organizational competencies is (are) neither that clear nor is the way to develop it (them).

Thus, we see the rapid implementation of project management in organizations and great efforts spent to train people in project management (Parker 1999). The National Aeronautical and Space Administration (NASA) trains one-third of its workforce (18,500) in one way or another in project management each year and its Center of Excellence changed its name from Project/Program Management Initiative (PPMI) to NASA Academy of Program and Project Leadership (APPL): "Initiative" has become "Academy" (NASA 1999).

We see many papers and books about individual competencies, the way to develop them, about organizational learning, about lessons learned, about knowledge management, and about communities of practice. But many companies reach a limit in terms of efficiency and effectiveness while using traditional approaches (seminars, business games, teamwork, and university degrees) and find it very difficult to simultaneously combine individual and organizational development in a coherent way while using approaches like total quality management (TQM), 5S, and 6O. We lack an integrated perspective of individual, team, and organizational learning, where systemic and dynamic aspects of learning are taken into account.

This is the reason why we would like to propose a systemic and dynamic conceptual framework to answer the following question: How to design a learning process enabling concurrent development of individual competencies and maturity of organization in a perspective of creation of value?

Before giving some insights and elements of response we have to clarify our vision of project management and what approaches we are going to mobilize.




The Frontiers of Project Management Research
The Frontiers of Project Management Research
ISBN: 1880410745
EAN: 2147483647
Year: 2002
Pages: 207

flylib.com © 2008-2017.
If you may any questions please contact us: flylib@qtcs.net