و بعد از آمدن مدیریت پروژه پیچیده (تجدید نظر شده)
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|3263||2009||7 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : International Journal of Project Management, Volume 27, Issue 3, April 2009, Pages 304–310
The subject of management is renowned for its addiction to fads and fashions. Project Management is no exception. The issue of interest for this paper is the establishment of standards in the area, specifically the ‘College of Complex Project Managers’ and their ‘competency standard for complex project managers’. Both the college and the standard have generated significant interest in the Project Management community. Whilst the need for development of the means to manage complex projects is acknowledged, a critical evaluation show significant flaws in the definition of complex in this case, the process by which the College and its standard have emerged, and the content of the standard. If Project Management is to continue to develop as a profession, it will need an evidence-based approach to the generation of knowledge and standards. The issues raised by the evaluation provide the case for a portfolio of research that extends the existing bodies of knowledge into large-scale complicated (or major) projects. We propose that it would be owned by the practitioner community, rather than focused on one organization. Research questions are proposed that would commence this stream of activity towards an intelligent synthesis of what is required to manage in both complicated and truly complex environments. This is a revised paper previously presented at the 21st IPMA World Congress on Project Management Cracow, Poland.
Fads and fashions in management are well understood phenomena . Project Management (PM) could be described as ‘currently fashionable’, given the level of interest in the area. On the one hand, PM is recognized to be the key enabler of business change and a vital contributor to future business success . On the other, projects commonly fail to meet their objectives ,  and . What are project managers and their organizations to do to resolve this dissonance? One organizational response to this is to seek increased levels of certainty of performance through the application of recognised competencies and standards . Significant numbers of Project Managers have gained certification to the existing PM standards (e.g. PMI, APM, PRINCE2) and more recently to the Program Standards, ProgM (PMI) and Managing Successful Programmes (from the UK’s Office of Government Commerce). A recent addition to the list of professional organisations is the College of Complex Project Managers (CCPM) who have developed their own standard. This new standard has emerged and appears to have gained momentum unchecked by any critical debate. The Competency Standards for Complex Project Managers (CSCPM)) holds little back on its claims. “This standard lays the foundation for project management to effectively deal with complex projects, and in doing so, to add real value to our world” . The objective of this paper is to provide a discussion starter on the professional development issues raised by this development, to examine this phenomenon and the associated claims, and to provide a development of the critical debate concerning its utility and implications for the practice of PM. The outcome is a set of recommendations for how the debate can be progressed through grounded research. The paper is structured around three main issues. The first concerns the nature of complex and complexity being discussed. The approach used by the College and the standard are compared with existing approaches. Secondly, the process by which the College and standard has emerged is examined. Lastly, the content of the standard and its implications are discussed.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
The College and the standard trouble us for a host of reasons: the definition of complex does not stand up to any scrutiny; there has been no analysis of the problems that the establishment of this initiative is intended to solve; the process by which the College and the standard have progressed has gone un-checked; and the standard is not established on evidence based practices. A good place to start is with an understanding of the problems faced in the kinds of projects embraced by the College – projects that we and others have termed ‘major’ rather than complex. Specifically, it is required to understand the root causes of problems. We propose the following research question: What has been the root causes of failure in major (e.g. defence procurement) projects? This question does not assume that the causes are all generalisable, but would provide the foundation for determining the nature of the initiatives that would start towards improved performance. The role that further training and accreditation would play in this would then be evident, and the business case clear. On the definition, we concluded that there was no case for treating the kind of projects discussed by the College as ‘complex’ any differently from other large, complicated undertakings. This led to the second research question: How do you measure complexity in a robust manner, that takes account of structural, dynamic and interaction elements? This would allow setting boundaries for levels of complexity within projects, and allow analysis of the supposition that projects have increased in complexity. Similarly, we concluded that beyond the existing tool sets of PM, there was little defined that would be relevant as tools coming from the ‘post-modernist book chapter headings’. Understanding the level of complexity in a project would allow evaluation of the current approaches, and the conditions under which these and emergent alternatives are effective. This led to the third and fourth research questions: Under what conditions of complexity are the current toolsets and approaches to managing projects effective? How should the approach to a high complexity project differ from that of a non-complex project? Related to the toolsets was the issue of the interventions that project managers can make in complex systems. These are poorly described by the standard, and are worth further research. Specifically research question five: Under what conditions (including complex) are different interventions effective? Finally, having started the process to provide credible knowledge under-pinning the definition and associated approaches, it would then be worth considering the personal skills, competencies, thinking processes, attitudes and abilities that underpin high performance in ‘complex projects’. It has been argued that 21st century practitioner development will focus more on enabling reflective practitioners rather than providing skilled technicians . A standard may indeed contain some of these elements, but it is key to such a process that we understand: What are the characteristics of managers who appear to be able to handle complexity at pre-defined levels, and are these characteristics imitable? We would then have some reassurance that a competency standard had some basis in fact, and was able to demonstrate business benefit to organisations that adopted it. The process of the development of the College and the standard are undoubtedly flawed, and maybe given the emergent state of development of the academic subject area, they have simply filled a vacuum. The proliferation of unchecked standards will only fragment the emerging profession and reinforce the notion of Project Management as just another fad. The challenge for the academic and practitioner communities is to possess a credible suite of tools and techniques, well developed through research such as that outlined above, which are based on good evidence and that support practitioners in improving performance in their own environments.