تفکر جامع نظام مند در مدیریت پروژه نوآورانه: ترکیبی موثر
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی|
|3300||2011||12 صفحه PDF||30 صفحه WORD|
هزینه ترجمه مقاله بر اساس تعداد کلمات مقاله انگلیسی محاسبه می شود.
این مقاله شامل 8920 کلمه می باشد.
این مقاله قبلاً ترجمه شده و همین الان می توانید ترجمه آماده آن را با 70 درصد تخفیف دانلود فرمایید:
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : International Journal of Project Management, Volume 29, Issue 4, May 2011, Pages 396–407
1.مقدمه: نیاز برای تفکر جامع سیستماتیک در مدیریت پروژه
2.حدود و روش های کنترل عملیاتی در مدیریت پروژه سنتی
جدول 1. سنجش نوآوری (به لحاظ زیاد – متوسط - اندک) در پروژه های گسترش نوآوری با بودجه های عمومی، بر مبنای طبقه بندی ژمودن و همکارانش
3.تفکر جامع سیستماتیک چطور می تواند در مدیریت پروژه اعمال شود؟
4.طرح تحقیقاتی: مقایسه ای، موارد مطالعاتی چندگانه
4.1جمع آوری داده ها و منابع داده
5.یافته ها: تفکر جامع سیستماتیک تطابق بهتری با نوآوری پروژه ها دارد
5.1مقایسه اهداف برنامه و ابزارهای اجرایی سازی
5.2مقایسه مدیریت پروژه به لحاظ برنامه ریزی، برقراری ارتباط و فعالیت های کنترل وظایف
5.2.1 پروژه های eTEN و مدیریت و عملکرد آنها
5.2.2 مدیریت و عملکرد پروژه EARSS
6.مقایسه یافته ها
جدول 2. داده هایی که به مقایسه بازدهی پروژه ها و برقراری ارتباط با مدیریت آنها در تحول (از روی تحقیقات تجربی) می پردازد
جدول 3. مقایسه روش های مدیریت پروژه که در این پروژه ها استفاده می شود(بر اساس اسناد تجربی). پروژه های EARSS با رنگ خاکستری متمایز شده در تناظر با جدول 2.
7. جمع بندی
7.1پیامدهای مربوط به تحقیقات آینده و تئوری
This paper discusses why conventional project management practices lead to the failure of publicly funded innovation deployment projects, and investigates how the use of systems thinking in project management can help projects be more successful. Based on 12 case studies of two EU innovation policies, we provide evidence that by using systemic project management, which entails providing flexibility in planning, communicating and controlling activities, innovation projects are more successful. This research refutes previous theory that claims that we should formalize to manage complexity and uncertainty. The key finding is that systems thinking methods provide the flexibility to manage innovativeness, complexity and uncertainty in innovation projects more successfully. Suggestions for further research include suggestions of how to embed flexibility in project management methods using the constructs of equifinality and causal embeddedness
This paper advocates the application of systems thinking in the management of innovation projects. The argument is that there is a lack of effective project management practice suitable for innovation projects and that systems thinking can be a suitable conceptual framework to provide constructs for the development of better theory and practice. The argument is developed thus. First, we discuss the application of conventional project management methodologies in publicly funded innovation deployment projects in this way. Deployment projects differ from NPD projects in terms of innovativeness, complexity and uncertainty because they are not developing a technology but they diffuse, customize, modify and market already mature technologies to users. These projects have lower levels of technological uncertainty and novelty, but higher levels of complexity because they deal with different types of users and markets. These facts influence the organization of project activities. Current theory claims that publicly funded innovation deployment projects need careful process control over activities, a formalized communication process and detailed planning. However the consistently high levels in failure of publicly funded innovation deployment projects make us question this argument. The questions remain: How can systems thinking be applied to projects in order to manage for innovativeness, complexity and uncertainty? Evidence from 12 case studies reveals that an overemphasis on operational control and the lack of flexibility to manage boundary relations and operational change are the critical factors for the successful project management of complexity and uncertainty. These are two important functions in systems thinking, which is a conceptual framework, providing constructs for the attributes and functions of systems. How can systems thinking help the practice of control and planning in projects? To apply systems thinking in project practice, this study suggests that further research into the constructs of equifinality and causal connectedness is needed to embed flexibility in project management.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
Conventional theories of innovation project management prescribe that projects with lower levels of technological uncertainty, modest levels of innovativeness, higher levels of complexity and higher levels of relational instability, need to be managed with careful process control, a formalized communication process, and detailed planning. The consistently high levels of failure of publicly funded innovation deployment projects however, leave us to question these kinds of planning and control methods. This study therefore advocated that public innovation deployment projects fail precisely because of conventional management practices. Evidence from 12 case studies refuted the previous arguments and showed that conventional project management methods, such as detailed planning, formalized communication and tight controls, do not help deployment projects perform well, because they stifle innovativeness and communication through the boundaries, and restrict managerial action to handle contingencies and change. The same evidence showed that flexibility should be embedded in operational control and boundary management activities that help projects adjust to the demands of their environment and to resource limitations. In conclusion, systems thinking can contribute to the planning and controlling for innovativeness, complexity and uncertainty by embedding flexibility in managerial activities. Systems thinking constructs should correspond to operational flexibility and boundary management (such as causal embeddedness and equifinality) that have to be embedded into conventional project management methods. 7.1. Implications for theory and future research Two conclusions are drawn from the evidence. The first is that in circumstances where the outcomes of project activities are less predictable (uncertainty), and where these activities involve many stakeholders and boundaries (communication-complexity), empirical evidence shows that operational flexibility (equifinality) and boundary management (causal embeddedness) become very significant to successful practice, more significant than formalization and control mechanisms. The second conclusion is that the emphasis on monitoring instruments on outputs (efficiency in process performance measurements like the Iron Triangle — cost, time and scope) and not outcomes (effectiveness, achievement of goals) leads to low and ceremonial performance in innovation projects. These arguments however, should not be perceived as a rejection of process control mechanisms or conventional project management methods. In fact the paper questions only the emphasis on process measures and other conventional project management methods and proposes that these should be improved by embedding systemic constructs (equifinality and causal connectedness). The subjects in the projects expressed exactly that: not the absence of rigorous control but the complementarity of control with instruments that will provide more flexibility, is required in modern innovation project management. Theories from other project fields like construction and IT have recognised these and have initiated their own efforts to discover ways to make their projects more flexible. Why doesn't this happen in the management of innovation projects? Efforts for exploring more flexible ways of managing innovation projects are marginal and are not widely reported or supported for experimentation and discussion. It is evident, therefore, that a balance should be struck between process output and performance outcome measures in management philosophies. It would help if further research was conducted into different types of projects to see different variations of the applications of systems thinking constructs. Further research is also needed to identify the applicability and suitability of different systemic constructs in various innovation environments. Therefore, this study targets a weakness in conventional project management methodologies, which are designed to make the processes of a project predictable enough to be managed, but are unable to encapsulate ways to manage the evolutionary nature of processes in innovation projects (Shenhar and Dvir, 2007, Cicmil, 2006 and Söderlund, 2004). The findings of our study refute the argument that publicly funded innovation deployment projects need only careful process control over activities, a formalized communication process, a clearly defined project protocol and detailed business and risk planning (McNally et al., 2010 and Salomo et al., 2007). We make a distinct contribution to innovation project management Davis, 2007 and Shenhar et al., 2002) by providing a clear indication of which areas of project management should use specific systems thinking constructs, which will lead to more successful practice.