متفاوت ساختن ؟ بررسی روش های نوآورانه برای مدیریت پروژه در مرکز عالی یک بخش دولتی در بریتانیا
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|3233||2008||10 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||2646 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : International Journal of Project Management, Volume 26, Issue 5, July 2008, Pages 556–565
The UK Government has introduced measures in recent years aimed at improving project delivery capability in government departments, including the establishment of departmental Centres of Excellence (CoE) of Project and Programme Management (PPM) – ‘super programme offices’ charged with ‘embedding best practice’. This paper presents a case study of an innovative approach to the introduction of a CoE for IT-enabled change projects that includes a central team of highly skilled, experienced managers to intervene directly as required in problematic projects. The positive impact of this approach is compared with that of a previous conventional CoE focused mainly on ‘best practice’ process implementation, where no direct impact could be seen. Taken together with research literature from a number of disciplines, the case study supports the view that the conventional CoE approach of embedding ‘best practice’ control processes may have little success in improving project delivery. It highlights the importance of direct intervention using experience-based, context-sensitive skills in improving project performance, and points to the essential role of organisational power, politics and rhetoric in ‘making a difference’.
A 2003 government report ‘Improving Project and Programme Delivery: Increasing the Civil Service’s Capacity and Capability to Deliver’ highlighted the importance of Project and Programme Management (PPM) in meeting the Government’s objectives for improving public services. A ‘pivotal’ recommendation was the introduction of Centres of Excellence for PPM (CoEs), ‘super programme offices’ combining the role of departmental programme management office with responsibility for building PPM capability and capacity. CoEs were seen as supporting top management in implementing a programme management approach to delivery throughout the organisation, and providing the information for pro-active strategic management of the project portfolio. They would improve project success by ‘embedding best practice’ and providing support to projects through: • Processes and toolkits – providing standardised processes, including the standard project lifecycle, tools, checklists and structured guidance so that departments can manage their projects “with greater consistency and rigour”, drawing upon the central guidance of the Office of Government Commerce (OGC), and the National Audit Office (NAO)1; • Developing skills – providing frameworks, based on the above toolkits, and supported by professional accreditation schemes, for the assessment, recruitment and development of staff with the PPM skills required for different delivery roles. Detailed guidance issued by OGC in 2004  makes it clear that a CoE is seen as having an advisory and guiding role in establishing PPM, particularly at the outset of projects. While monitoring progress and reporting issues to senior management, it is not expected to actively intervene in projects. Delivery accountability rests with the Senior Responsible Owner (SRO – senior manager with project sponsorship responsibilities) and the project manager.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
What we have been able to observe in this case study is the marked difference in impact between two different implementations of a project and programme management (PPM) Centre of Excellence in the same organisation. The first implementation (PPMCoE) was well-implemented in line with central government guidance, and its design relied predominantly on the introduction of, and training in, ‘best practice’ structured PPM processes to achieve improvements in project delivery. The second implementation (ITCoE), while sharing similar objectives of introducing ‘best practice’ processes (the IT project lifecycle), involved also the introduction of a central team of highly skilled, experienced project managers (‘delivery managers’) to assess status and to intervene directly as required in problematic projects. On the basis of traffic light reports of the project portfolio, it seems that the first implementation, with no remit or capability to intervene directly in projects, had no observable impact on project delivery performance over a 2-year period. The later intervention-oriented approach showed a clear impact on project performance within a few months, which reduced as the intervention activity reduced. In both cases, it appeared that the apparent organisational commitment to, and promotion of, ‘best practice’ PPM processes led to few substantive changes in the way project activity was actually conducted or to any improvement in the capability of project teams. Our interpretation is that the observed improvement in performance was achieved through the active involvement of experienced project managers directly influencing day-to-day project activities, under the direct leadership of a personally powerful and highly committed individual (the IT director), skillfully exploiting a specific organisational context. We see the attempts in each case to introduce ‘best practice’ processes having no observable impact on project outcomes. However, we observe that the PPM rhetoric was very dominant, and maintained even when those promoting it were evidently not following PPM in practice. This tends to obscure the lack of impact of the introduction of PPM processes on project outcomes. For instance, the rhetoric was used in the ITCoE case as a powerful lever in gaining legitimacy for effective interventions that might otherwise not have been possible. We see our findings as consistent with the findings from previous research across a range of different disciplines. As discussed in Section 1.2 of this paper, this research challenges the assumptions upon which the conventional Centre of Excellence approach is based; in particular, the universal validity of the ‘best practice’ process control model of projects, and the development of improved practice through structured process methodologies based on that model. The relative success of the ITCoE interventionist approach in this case, and the obvious importance of organisational power, history and context in achieving the improved project performance, emphasise the widely acknowledged importance of interpersonal, experience-based skills and tacit knowledge applied in the specific context, rather than the introduction of standardised control processes. Recognising the limits of generalisability from this case study, this research, taken with the findings from the literature, nonetheless seems to us to point to a number of conclusions: • the widespread introduction of PPM Centres of Excellence with their current remit, one of the central planks of the UK Government’s drive to improve project delivery, may well have little direct impact on outcomes; • improvement in an organisation’s project delivery performance is possible, but more likely to be achieved through focused intervention by experienced and skilled project managers, than through the promotion of ‘best practice’ processes and techniques; • such an approach is at odds with the current orthodoxy and is likely to meet political resistance; its success is likely to be highly dependent on the local situation, and require strong leadership and adequate resources. Looking to future research, it is clear that if we are to develop effective approaches to improve organisational project performance we need to understand better (a) what successful project managers and teams actually do in the day-to-day organisational interactions that resolve issues and drive projects to successful outcomes and (b) how those experience-based skills can be most effectively developed and transferred, by means other than process codification.