Model behaviour - part II

In part one (November issue), Dr John McManus examined some of the issues within the time, cost and quality project management paradigm. In part two, he challenges the legitimacy of the paradigm in use today.

Recent research into why projects fail or success has found that adherence to the time, cost and quality (specification) paradigm does not adequately define success. Indeed, a number of key symptoms typically associated with the failure to deliver information technology projects centre more on commitment, leadership, stakeholder involvement and risk.

An ability to lead is clearly one the most important competencies a project manager must have. A lack of leadership qualities can readily result in the failure of projects. As such, the project manager must be able to set goals and objectives. The manager must then be able to identify and implement the steps necessary to achieve them. Working closely with various stakeholder groups, the project manager must have the skills necessary to translate expectations into a practical vision for the project.

Given the extent of management literature published in recent years, it might be thought that leadership in project management is no longer an issue. However, few writers actually define leadership and the context is generally not in project management.

Over the last three decades the challenges within project management have focussed on maximising the time, cost and quality paradigm. Although leadership is a concern, for many it comes lower down the list of key characteristics than understanding and keeping pace with information technology.

Those responsible for initiating projects within organisations still look to the time, cost and quality paradigm as a way of prioritising projects and the work that needs undertaking to deliver them. In many respects this paradigm reinforces the value of technical skills above the softer skills many aspiring project managers need and makes it difficult for project managers to get out of the technology ghettos many find themselves in.

In maximising the time, cost and quality paradigm the presumption is that those who are being led are being motivated to follow rather than coerced to do so. Interestingly, the view on leadership is simply that whoever is at the head of the pack is a leader, regardless of whether the pack is motivated to follow voluntarily. Motivation rarely features in the top 10 concerns listed by key decision makers.

For example, the Managing Information Strategies survey, published in 2004m into the top 10 concerns of information technology directors placed managing budgets as the top priority and leadership in project management as their least priority, indicating that leadership even today is much undervalued in a lot of organisations. Motivating subordinates and team members did not make the list. Even with the absence of leadership when project failures arise, they are complicated because there are so many ways that they may occur. In many projects the complexity is evident even before the apparent or actual causes are considered, raising the question of whether or not it is the project itself that is in trouble or a project that is being done to create a need or satisfy someones ego.

Risk management paradigms

Risk management paradigms tend to have similar content, and most place emphasis on adding details of identified risk and their resolution to the lessons learned from previously implemented projects. The maintenance of historical records of risks and issues as they are closed allows organisations to effectively learn from experience. The PM: LSR risk management paradigm developed by the author argues that failure is caused by a combination of abnormal events or failures linked to a series of symbiotic activities. A common theme running through many risk frameworks is risk assessment and risk control.

Recent research into project failure identified the major causes of project risk as lack of strategic planning at the initiation stage, lack of stakeholder involvement, leadership and CEO support. Projects are usually initiated in the context of change and that these projects are different from normal, perhaps incremental change processes. They generally have a set of objectives to be realised within an agreed time, cost and quality framework.

To cope with complexity, a risk management cycle, (Plan, Do, Check, and Act PDCA) must be executed and, if necessary, repeated to minimise risk. To identify and explain why projects continue to fail despite advances in project management tools, techniques and methodologies, organisations need to improve risk management if they are to reduce high project failure rates.

Also identified were behavioural, political, economic, social, technical and legal aspects with a project environment, as risks related to information technology projects often arise from group dynamics especially those involving the project manager, project team and steering committees. These different groups (whilst one community) are essential to the good management and succeed of projects and not managed their dysfunction poses serious risk.

In summary, the time, cost and quality paradigm is deeply flawed a remains a divisive model. Many of the causal factors and issues associated with project management and project failure can be traced back to this troublesome paradigm.

In my opinion, what is required in contemporary project management practice is a model that embraces leadership, stakeholder and risk management.