Project management approaches for dynamic environments Essay

This paper sets out to investigate the nature of projects  conducted in fast changing environments. Examples and  theory are used to illustrate the nature and challenges of  this category. Suitable management approaches are identiï ¬ ed under the following headings: Planning, Experimentation, Lifecycle, Controls, Culture, Communication, and Leadership style. The dynamic project category.  The paper closes with recommendations for further  research. In this paper, control is taken to mean the mechanisms through  which resources are managed to achieve objectives [1], and is diï ¬â‚¬erent to the PMBOK ‘technique’ [2] which is strictly focused on bringing activities in line with a plan [3]. The term dynamic is taken to mean characterised by constant change [4]. In the project management context dynamism is taken to be a dimension of a project  that represents the extent to which a project is inï ¬â€šuenced by changes in the environment in which it is conducted. This paper argues that this is a non-binary dimension that  applies in varying degrees to all projects, so strictly any  given project is neither ‘dynamic’ nor ‘not dynamic’. All projects have some degree of dynamism, so the dimension  is not dichotomic. Therefore, the ideas in this paper may be applied in varying degrees to any project as deemed appropriate. For the sake of simplicity though, for the remainder of this paper, a dynamic project is taken to be one that is  necessarily subject to higher than normal levels of change  due to the environment in which it is conducted. The business environment is changing at an increasing  pace [5–7]. Rothwell and Zegveld [8] went so far as to say we are in the midst of a technology explosion. They argued  that 90% of our technical knowledge has been generated in  the last 55 years, and that technical knowledge will continue to increase exponentially. Perrino and Tipping [9] reported  Ã¢â‚¬ËœÃ¢â‚¬Ëœthe pace of technology is accelerating, raising the stakes and risks for  managing innovation, and requiring early  warning and shorter response time†. Change, in all forms  of technology and business processes, can be regarded as  increasingly pervasive and providing challenges even where high technology is not a core business, such as in mining  [10]. Consider how the Australian Submarine project was  challenged by developments in the IT industry between  the 1980s design phase, and sea trials decades later [7].  This paper will now investigate dynamic projects from a  theoretical point of view. Gray and Larson [11] argued that    Pich, Loch and De Meyer [12] describe a type of project  that encounters unknown unknowns and how it is best suited to what they called a ‘learning’ strategy which involves scanning, problem solving and ï ¬â€šexibility. They argue that  this is distinct from projects conducted in well understood  environments which are suited to ‘instructionism’, and distinct from  Ã¢â‚¬Ëœselectionism’ where the most fruitful initiative is chosen after a pool of trials. Turner and Cochran [13]  espouse the ‘goals and methods matrix’ that describes four diï ¬â‚¬erent types of project according to how well deï ¬ ned the methods and goals are. Projects can have poorly deï ¬ ned  goals (‘ï ¬ re’) or poorly deï ¬ ned methods (‘water’), or both (‘air’).  Shenhar and Wideman [14] describe a type of project that involves high levels of uncertainty, using technologies together for the ï ¬ rst time. They call these ‘high tech’ [14]. They also describe a type of project that actually creates  new technologies, called ‘super high tech’. Shenhar [15] describes how ‘low technology’ projects are typically performed in construction, production and utilities, and high technology projects in the computer, aerospace and electronics industries. He oï ¬â‚¬ers building and bridge construction as examples of low technology projects. The key diï ¬â‚¬erence to Shenhar is the level of development work  involved, in that low technology projects have little, and high technology projects have considerable levels and usually require prototyping. Shenhar and Wideman [14] argue that another key diï ¬â‚¬erence is the number of design  cycles. In low technology projects they say there is typically only one cycle with a freeze before development, and with high technology there are at least two, typically  three cycles. Operational  work  Cioï ¬Æ' [16] suggests that ‘projects’ be placed on a spectrum of ‘newness’ from operational to project. The idea has been adapted in Fig. 1 to illustrate the sliding scale  of unknowns that applies to projects. Unknowns in this  sense refer to any aspect of the project, including the methods to achieve it, the objective, and the environment it has to operate in. The guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK) [2] describes  Ã¢â‚¬Ëœprogressive elaboration’, where planning is developed in greater detail as the project progresses. Using progressive elaboration to ï ¬ ll knowledge gaps, it might be possible to move a project to the left in  Fig. 1, thereby achieving the objective in a more predictable fashion. However, rapid changes in the environment, including tools and methods, and attempts to innovate,  act to push the project to the right, increasing unknowns.  The two forces of exploration and change act against each  other continuously throughout the project. The challenge is to conduct exploration at a greater rate than the emergence  of environmental change. It is also important to ensure that the amount of change created by the exploration and  implementation is not counterproductive overall. An example of Project A in Fig. 1 might be a production line where there only variable is the colour required.    The intention here is to review literature to provide a  broad overview of approaches that might be used to better  deal with dynamic environments. Approaches were broken down as follows: