Terry.cooke davies

Complexity, Systems
and Project
Management:
Reconnecting PM to
its Living Roots.
Dr Terry Cooke-Davies
Executive Chairman
Human Systems International

Used with Permission © Human Systems International 1987-2009 All Rights Reserved 1

Today’s Presentation

Viewing PM
PM’s birth in Implications &
thru complexity
systems conclusions
theory

Complexity
Complexity &
theory’s birth in
PM
systems

Evolution of
Evolution of
artificial
PM
systems

© Human Systems International 1987-2009 All Rights Reserved 2

Project Management Was Born
In A World Of Systems
Atlas Program: 1954. Under leadership of General B. A.
Schriever implemented management system to oversee
and manage the development of the complete missile
system. Specified concepts fundamental to all future
project management.

Cleland and King’s 1968 Classic made the
link explicit between the system (or product)
being developed and the (management)
system for controlling its development.

Polaris Program: 1956/57. Under Admiral
Raborn, the program developed Program
Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT) –
one of the two sources (with Critical Path
Method) of modern Critical Path Analysis. Reserved
© Human Systems International 1987-2009 All Rights 3

General Systems Theory
Promised Much... …
1. Frameworks Anatomy of universe, patterns of electrons in atom etc.

2. Clockworks Solar system, simple machines, railway locomotives etc.

3. Thermostats Control Mechanisms or Cybernetic Systems

4. Cells Open systems or self-maintaining structures.

5. Plants Differentiated and mutually dependent parts (roots, leaves,
seeds, etc.); genotype and phenotype.

6. Animals Increased mobility, teleological behavior and self-awareness.

7. Human Beings As (6) + self-consciousness.

8. Social Organizations Families, tribes, businesses, political systems etc.

9. Trascendental Systems The ultimates and absolutes and the inescapable unknowables.

Kenneth Boulding (1956) General Systems Theory: The Skeleton of Science.

…But Theory And Practice
Followed 3 Very Different
Trajectories
General Complex
Systems Through Chaos to Complexity and… Adaptive
Theory Systems

Through Management Science & OR “Soft” Systems
Cybernetics
to… Thinking

Aligned during
the 1950s and
1960s
Project Current PM
Through Process & Credentials to …
Management Practice


Different Types of System

A Systems Map of the Universe:
Adapted from Checkland P (1981). Systems Thinking,
Systems Practice. Wiley, Chichester

Natural Systems Have Been Studied In
Numerous Contexts in Different Branches of
Science … … …

Source: René Doursat: LSE
Seminar 26th June 2009 © Human Systems International 1987-2009 All Rights Reserved 7

Insights Relevant to PM.
Non-Linearity
• Sensitive dependence on original conditions (Lorenz 1961)
• Catastrophe theory, Chaos theory, non-linear mathematics

Emergence
• Flows through many strands of chaos and complexity theories.
• Evolution leads to novelty

Evolution Leads to Increasing Complexity
• Higher organisms more complex than lower ones.
• Different environments support different adaptations – Co-opetition

Radical Uncertainty
• Prigogine and “dissipative structures” (Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1977)
• Open systems: non-linear, dynamic, self-transforming

Source: Cooke-Davies et al (2007) “You’re not in Kansas
Anymore, Toto”. Project Management Journal

Forty Years of Growth

302,167
300,000
• Members in 171 countries
250,000 • 250+ chapters
• 30 SIGs, two colleges
200,000

150,000
100,000
(2002)
100,000

50,000
17,059
1,000 5,272
0
1975 1985 1995 2005

9

Proliferation of Standards

10

Emphasis is Linear, Rational,
Deterministic… … …
Figure 3-1. Links Among Process Groups in a Phase

Initiating Planning
Processes Processes

Figure 5-3. Sample Work Breakdown Structure Organized by Phase
Controlling Executing
Processes Processes Software Product
Release 5.0

Project Product Detail Integration
(Arrows represent Closing Construction
Management Requirements Design and Test
flow of documents Processes
and documentable
items Planning Software Software Software Software

User User User User
Meetings
Documentation
Figure 6-2.Documentation Logic Diagram Using the Precedence Diagramming Method
Network Documentation Documentation

Training Program Training Program Training Program Training Program
Administration
Materials Materials A Materials BMaterials C

This WBS is illustrative only. It is not intended to represent the full project scope of any specific
project, nor to imply that this is the only way to organize a WBS on this type of project
Start Finish

A B C


… … At The Expense of
People.


Diverse Developments in
Management Systems
Jay Forrester and others have been developing
System Dynamics since the 1960s, and it was
popularised by Peter Senge in the 5th Discipline in the
1990s

Cybernetics and Operations Research
has given rise to concepts such as
Stafford Beer’s “Viable Systems Model”,
and similar concepts employed in
Problematical situation
Systems Engineering.
(messy & complex)
2
1 Models of purposeful activity
(modelling to learn)

3
Structured discussion
Peter Checkland and others
Action to improve
(questions based on the models)
have been developing Soft
(not solutions)
Find accommodations Systems Methodology since the
4 (not consensus)
1970s.


There Have Been Interesting Studies
Relating “Hard” to “Soft” Approaches
……

Both in terms of the relationships
between the two perspectives … …

INCISM: Interdisciplinary Research
Network into Complimentarity in
Systems Modelling.

… … and in terms of the
underpinning philosophical
positions.

Source of both diagrams: Michael Pidd (2004) Systems
Modelling: Theory and Practice. London. John Wiley & Son.


… And Each Has its Uses …
…

… … depending upon the
circumstances in which it is
used … …

… … and its purpose at the
time.

Source of both diagrams: Michael Pidd (2004) Systems
Modelling: Theory and Practice.1987-2009 John Wiley & Son.
© Human Systems International London. All Rights Reserved 15

“Complexity” Enters PM
Literature, e.g.
Differs from • Implies “Woven together” - Interdependence
• Are “complex projects” a different “kind”?
“Complicated” • This matters – Hacking’s “interactive kinds”

• Structural uncertainty (number and relation of elements etc.)
Williams (1999) • Uncertainty (goals, methods)

• Technical uncertainty
Shenhar (2001) • Array of people involved in decision-making

• Dynamical systems complexity
Hancock (2004) • Behavioural complexity

Cicmil (2005 to • Social and behavioural complexity
• Decision-making with differing interests, cultures, knowledge
2009)

Categorizing for Complexity
Attribute Count %
1 Project scope 45 16.0%
2 Technical complexity 39 13.8%
3 Number of functions and skills 30 10.6%
4 Organisational involvement 30 10.6%
5 Level of ambiguity / uncertainty 27 9.6%
6 Number of sites, locations, countries 26 9.2%
7 Organisational impact 24 8.5%
8 Clarity of goals / objectives 22 7.8%
9 Risk source and location 15 5.3%
10 Familiarity 13 4.6%
11 Standalone or component of larger project 11 3.9%
N= 282 100.0%
Crawford, Hobbs & Turner, 2005

Management complexity (GAPPS)
Stability of the overall project context

Number of distinct disciplines, methods, or approaches involved

Magnitude of legal, social, or environmental implications

Overall expected financial impact on project stakeholders

Strategic importance of the project to the organisation or
organisations involved

Number and variety of interfaces between the project and other
organisational entities

For report on application of this categorization across projects globally, see
Aitken, A. and Crawford, L.H. (2007) A study of project categorisation based on project management
complexity. In: Proceedings of IRNOP VIII Conference, University of Sussex ,19-21 September 2007,
Brighton, UK: University of Sussex

Arguably all projects are complex

…if people are involved
“Consider what happens in an
organisation when a rumour of
reorganisation surfaces: the
complex human system starts
to mutate and change in
unknowable ways; new
patterns form in anticipation of
the event.
On the other hand, if you walk up
to an aircraft with a box of tools
in your hand, nothing changes”
Snowdon, 2002


Viewing project management
practice through a “complexity
theory” lens
Multiple participants in 30+ projects
USA, UK, Australia, Finland
Engineering, construction, IT & pharmaceutical R&D

Interested in illuminating:
How project participants (PMs, team members, senior executives/sponsors; other
stakeholders) perceive and experience ‘complexity’: unpredictability, power relations,
ambiguity and change of plans over time, risk,.
How is ‘project control’ enacted in practice? And what are the challenges?
How do project practitioners understand planning in an indeterminate world?
What is their experience with achieving a shared understanding of the project goal within
a project coalition?
What kind of ambiguity and equivocality practitioners face regarding criteria for qualifying
projects as success or failure, and how do they cope with it?
What do they do when they find themselves not being in control of projects?
What are their experiences with integrating the project team: communication, cooperation,
confidence and learning among project parties over the project’s life time?
Svetlana Cicmil et. al (2009) Exploring the Complexity of Projects: Implications of Complexity Theory for Project
Management Practice. Project Management Institute..

Goals are equivocal, with
multiple agendas.
“Did (the company) achieve a positive financial outcome? Yes.
Was it was what they’d originally thought? No. Did the customer
achieve their outcomes? Yes. Was it in the timeframe they’d
hoped for? No. Overall the project will have been a success. It will
probably cost a little more than it should have and probably taken a
little more than it should.’ [PS-02: Project Sponsor]

There are gaps between what we communicated and the customer
expectations. Although I find you can always cover more in the
scope, in pre-sales, there are many implicit requirements and
commitments that don’t necessarily get communicated in the scope
documentation. This is where trust between companies comes in.
There is not always enough time to clarify gaps, so the gaps stay
there. Sometimes you never need to address those grey areas, but
sometimes you do and if necessary you go into escalation. If we
promise something and don’t deliver, everyone suffers.
Expectations versus what is in writing is a problem. [PS – 01:
Project manager]

Conversations take place with multiple
agencies against a background of
uncertainty
I know I cannot be in total control [of the project] and I have to
renegotiate the original plan on a regular basis…being in charge
of a project is not about control it is about how you engage with
senior executives to shift the power relations through
conversations … you want to use your CPM diagram and Gantt,
to make your argument factual, believable, grounded in some, to
them, distant but convincing project management technique…to
trigger their confidence that you know what you are doing…
[RR-BB-2]

Most people knew that this project was growing, some of the
people from distribution began to understand the significance of
this project. So it’s real hard to point to any one moment when
somehow a light went off. If things happened, it’s a growing
body of evidence, and growing insight and understanding that
builds up to this, at these critical moments that you decide you
need to do something. At that point a decision was made that
we needed to do a [fundamental review of the project]. [PS – 31:
Project sponsor]


Progress is maintained in the face of
radical uncertainty & the anxiety that it
creates
Everything evolves around the paradox of the golden project triangle: in time,
to cost and with agreed quality or spec– if you ignore the paradox by setting
up a tool-based control model, you get trapped in the iron cage of promises,
unmanaged expectations, contractual clauses…80% of my time as PM I
spend figuring out, negotiating, persuading, or prioritizing multiple agendas
and interests against KPIs [key performance indicators] and 20% fire-fighting
…managing change to plans on the ground…that is project management for
you. [RR-AB-2]

It’s one of those things that from the beginning was going to be an almost
impossible project because of the resources and timeframe and what needed
to be done. [PS-23: Project manager]

You never know about the successes before the work is done, it’s then when
you see it. But, when a schedule starts clicking, it depends a lot on who is
eventually doing the work. It’s always cooperation. No matter how perfect
you try to make, if you really look for problems you will always find
something. Of course, you could always find excuses:” I haven’t got the right
information”, but as much as possible we, on this project, try to stick to the
schedule that has been agreed together, we won’t be throwing stones at
some other party.[NH-1-IK, leader of electrical works]

Conclusions From The Study
Projects involve patterned conversation and power relating between people – tools
help to form the conversations and relationships.

Project work can be seen as self-organizing capacity emerging from these complex
processes.

Power is located in the processes of conversing and relating, rather than in any one
individual.

People experience feelings aroused by these processes, and how they deal with
these under conditions of uncertainty will vary from person to person and culture to
culture. Complexity is unavoidable.

Transformation and novelty are possible because of the intrinsic diversity of the
people interacting on projects.

The effective Project Manager is a participant in these processes of relating,
continuously engaged in emergent enquiry into what they are doing and what steps
they should take next and reflexive in thinking about the quality of their own
participation in complex processes of relating in their local project situation.

A Project Manager cannot stand outside organizational processes and control them
or direct them in an intentionally chosen direction.

People Are Themselves
Complex Systems… …

Weighs ~2% of body
weight, yet uses 25%
to 40% of energy.

Limits energy usage
utilising habit and
reflex.

Is itself a source of
complexity: 1 signal at
periphery could
become 100,000
impulses at centre.


PARALLEL-CONVERGENT-DIVERGENT CIRCUITRY OF
MAJOR FUNCTIONAL BUILDING BLOCKS OF THE BRAIN

Source: Gerhard
Roth: Brain
Research Unit:
University of
Bremen

HIERARCHICAL-HETERARCHICAL ORGANIZATION

… … Prone to Optimism Bias
and Strategic
Misrepresentation … …
At PMI Research Conference in Montreal, Flyvbjerg identified 3 causes of risk
Technical: Inadequate data and models
Psychological: Optimism bias
Political-economic: Strategic misrepresentation, rent-seeking behavior, misaligned
incentives

He Quoted Kahneman & Tversky’s Nobel Prize Winning “Prospect Theory”
People underestimate costs, completion times, and risks of planned actions
People overestimate the benefits of the same actions
Underestimation + overestimation = planning fallacy = optimism bias

He contrasted
the “Inside view” focusing on the constituents of the specific planned action, seeing this
action as unique, with
The “Outside view” focusing on the outcomes of similar actions that have already been
completed
And advocated “Reference Class Forecasting”, which removes both optimism bias and
strategic misrepresentation.


… Among Many Irrationalities.
(Design Limitations of HOS?)
Self-serving Bias: The tendency to take the Hindsight Bias: The tendency to
credit for success, and blame external retrospectively overestimate the probability
factors for failure. of past events occurring.

Self-centred Bias: The tendency for an Self-righteous Bias: The tendency to
individual contributor to take a regard oneself as having higher moral
disproportionate amount of credit for the standards or greater moral consistency than
outcome of group effort. others have.

Egocentricity Bias: The tendency to In-group/out-group Bias: The tendency to
exaggerate the importance of one’s role in view members of the group to which one
past events. belongs in a more positive light than
members of groups of which one is not a
False Consensus Effect: The tendency to member.
believe that most people share one’s
opinions and values. Base-rate Fallacy: The tendency to neglect
population characteristics and prior
Assumption of Uniqueness: The tendency probabilities when making probabilistic
to overestimate one’s uniqueness. inferences.

Illusion of Control: The tendency to Conjunction Fallacy: The tendency to
exaggerate the degree of one’s control over regard the conjunction of two events as more
external events. probable than either of them occurring
singly.
David Livingstone Smith (2004) “Why we
Lie” New York. St. Martin’s Griffin.

From SSM and Vickers, There
is the Idea of a “Flux of
Events”.

Twin strands of “ideas” and “events”.– Mutually interlinked.
Management interventions aimed at “improving the situation” (NOT solving the
problem)
Concept reflected in “Rethinking Project Management” Programme funded by
EPSRC from 2004Human Systems International 1987-2009 All Rights Reserved
to 2006. (See IJPM Special Issue, November 2007)
© 29

Reconnecting PM to Its
Living Roots.
PM was born in the world of systems of the 1950s and 1960s.

Since then, the worlds of systems in the natural sciences (and
artifical sciences), as well as in management has moved on
theoretically and developed many new insights and
understandings.

Project management has followed a different trajectory, and faces
significant problems of credibility when dealing with complexity.

Empirical results from applying the new insights to project and
programme management have suggested alternative approaches
to that followed by “mainstream” project management.

Is it not time to reconnect project management to its living roots in
the current understanding of complex systems?


Thank You for
Listening

terry.cooke-davies@humansystems.net


Terry.cooke davies

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

En vedette

En vedette (8)

Similaire à Terry.cooke davies

Similaire à Terry.cooke davies (20)

Plus de NASAPMC

Plus de NASAPMC (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Terry.cooke davies