Introduction
Many projects are characterized by massive failures, especially complex projects, despite the fact there are various project management methodologies and techniques to ensure projects are delivered within the constraints of scope, time, and budget (Haughey, 2011). Ever since project management came into the mainstream, enhancing intellectual performance has been among the most visible, yet also the most elusive goals of civilizations. There have been several debates whether human intelligence and its performance in tackling issues and challenges can be improved (Holgeid & Thompson, 2013). Task optimization was a once sufficient approach to solve problems; however, recent developments, including complexity and the need to manage increasingly scarce resource, means that optimization must be supplemented with innovation. Before, project management and routine administration of organizations required costs and profits to be rationalized; however, modern times have added additional value laden experiences that include regulatory, stakeholder, and broader community issues. Many firms have faced challenges of re-engineering their business processes, downsizing, process change, and attempts at meeting international quality standards such as ISO or attain lean manufacturing efficiencies. Further, manufacturing firms once relied on a single product life cycle to last a decade or more; presently, turn-arounds have been reduced to a matter of months (Wysocki, 2007).
With increasing challenges faced by organizations mounting, the project managers and analysts working in these organizations have come under increasing pressure to live up to the heightened expectations of their organizations where they must deliver more with much less resources, and at a better quality, more efficiently, with better service, in a process in which greater integration and coordination is required (Alexander, 2017). Further, these project managers and analysts are required to be more creative and innovative, and anticipate future opportunities, events as well as trends, within strict and limited time frames. As such, tasks assigned to project managers are characterized by increasing complexity, with a greater requirement for interdisciplinary collaboration; more personal and technical skills are required to successfully execute projects to completion (Jihane, 2015). For instance, project managers are required to manage the euphemistic concept of the triple constraints, which has also evolved; previously, the triple constraints pertained to the constraints of scope, time, and budget: presently, the aspects of quality, safety, customer satisfaction, security, consistency, and operational performance have been added to the triple constraints (Lee, 2010).
Further, there must be compliance with organization strategies as well as with government regulations. These recent trends are being compounded by a breathtaking pace of change, a situation that has made the skill sets and individual projects accompanying them can be become redundant very quickly. Present and future tasks related to project management will require continual training and retraining, as well as cognitive retooling on how people think about how complex, innovation demanding novel tasks and projects should be approached (Fairley, 2011). The primary competency for project managers is always benchmarked based on mastery of techniques and tools of the project management trade; in reality it only addresses only the ‘20’ in the 80-20 rule. The vast majority or responsibilities for the modern project manager involve value laden judgments in conditions characterized by dynamic uncertainty, which is worsened by the severe repercussions of failure. Given the constantly changing nature of the environments in which projects have to be run, the thinking on managing projects, which are ever becoming complex, requires new thinking models and methods that are sufficient to address the present challenges (Stiffler, 2016).
Complex projects can be looked at as being complex because of strategic viewpoints, budget, team size, stakeholder engagement, and the effect of dedicated teams undertaking projects that can take longer durations. Complex projects are characterized by ambiguity, uncertainty, significant external or political influences, and dynamic interfaces (Pollack, 2015). Complex projects are usually undertaken over a period that exceed the technology cycle time of the technologies being used, and can be defined by their effect, and not necessarily their solution (Caietti, 2016). This paper discusses how complex projects can be managed more effectively, in light of the expanded project constraints, given the relatively poor history of projects performance in whi9ch the rates of failure exceed the rates of success by a factor of two to one (Dandurand, 2017; Krigsman, 2009). The human side in the context of performance must be better understood by organizations if the performance of organizations as a whole is to be understood better.
Discussions
Managing complex projects requires that those involved first focus on the complexity mindset, which requires enterprise analyses to be undertaken during the study phases of projects. The business case for the project must be prepared for a new proposed project and the solution conceptualized and its architecture determined. The project then needs planning and initiation, and whenever there are troubles, the troubled project must be recovered as a new project management initiative where troubled projects are recovered under a new program. The framework to be used is depicted in the image below;
|
4 |
Manage dimensions of complexity |
1 |
Manage complexity in projects |
|
3 |
Select most suitable approach to the project |
2 |
Assign competent leaders |
The management of complex projects requires a holistic approach; this paper proposes the use of systems thinking to effectively manage complex projects. Complex projects require managerial leaders to understand systems and benefits that can be derived from systems and systems thinking in order to successfully manage complex projects. Systems’ thinking is an approach that enables the whole to be seen; it is a framework that requires interrelationships, rather than things, to be seen. It enables leaders to see patterns instead of static snapshots: systems thinking is a structure that enables structures underlying complex situations to be seen (McGlynn, 2016). Substantial evidence exists to show that systems thinking, itself derived from systems engineering, adds value to complex project success by reducing the requirements for reworks and re-planning, common characteristics of troubled projects. Further, systems thinking add value to projects by optimizing risk margins; hence enabling projects fulfill objectives and deliverables, on time and on budget through;
The concept that a system has a set of parts that when combined, have features and qualities that individual parts themselves lack is a highly productive and innovative way of viewing complex projects, portfolios, and programs. A system has many elements and parts that may include, for instance, information, processes, processes, people, transformation, organizations, and services, as well as hardware, software, and complex products (McGlynn, 2016). Systems thinking entail understanding what the program or project is attempting to achieve, ensuring that dependencies and activities don’t fall through cracks of either discipline or contractual responsibility silos. Large international or national projects are usually structured around a hierarchy of various interrelated projects and their sub projects. This results in a complicated ad fragmented project that must be executed in a multiple environments that add to more challenges, increasing project complexity. Present observations are that executing multinational mega projects usually run into serious problems because of lack of paying attention to quality management features, for instance, cultural differences (Smith, Jobling, & Merna, 201). Usually, a lack of common understanding between a common language and stakeholder sin large complex projects exists in these situations. This is one of the causes of severe delays, for instance in managing quality risks when building ships or constructing a mega power plant.
Systems thinking refers to a linear form of thinking and it is necessary for all sorts of complex problems, such as in managing complex projects, quality management, portfolio management, organizational management, and portfolio management. Systems are entities made up of different components that are dependent, that generate and exchange energy, information, or matter in order to generate a result. Systems make use of inputs that get transformed through processes, techniques, or tools into desired outputs. The outputs from a given syst5em often form part of inputs for other systems or to other components within the same system. Systems do not just interact by themselves; they form part of larger systems that are larger and more complex. Because of the internal and external influence and relationships, systems are complicated such that when any part of a system is taken away, altered, or rearranged, the system will function differently. Changing a single component within a system will result in that change reverberating unintended consequences for other systems. Solving complex projects requires is a method that looks at the whole and this is where systems thinking come-in in managing complex projects
Linear thinking and systems thinking
Solving complex problems requires systems thinking; for instance in portfolio, program, or project management. The Six Sigma, BABOK, PMBOK, TQM, Lean, and SEBOK all have their roots in systems thinking because it’s the single most effective way to develop solutions for long term needs and purposes; it is also the only way recurring problems can be minimized and unintended consequences eliminated or minimized. Systems thinking place a focus on the whole and so it can;
Spark innovation through encouraging questions and identifying new options and possibilities that cannot be seen when components and elements are individually looked at
The human mind faces difficulties making sense of problems that are complex, and systems thinking does not come naturally to people. People have a tendency to think in a linear manner where they seek simple sequences, patterns, and cause-effects. Traditional approaches to solving projects, including in project management, largely relies on reductionism in which complex entities are broken down to their simplest forms and then individually studied. This approach has the challenge that when the individual components are reassembled into the system, dynamics also drastically change. The components likely will behave in a different manner and have different characteristics when they are required to function together as a whole. For instance, the human DNA has just three simple chemical compounds; however, combining them into sequences creates the basis for all biological life, in their complexity and diversity. All biological life is not just the sum of the characteristics of the individual components. Comparing systems thinking with linear thinking is in itself not linear; both are needed when it comes to managing complex projects and should be looked at together. Systems thinking also rely upon cause-effect as well as reductionists approaches in solving problems because a problem cannot be effectively solved if it is not first well understood. The difference between linear and systems thinking is that of perception; in traditional linear thinking of cause and effect analysis, where A causes B, and the solution is C. In systems thinking, a circular perspective is used to look at cause and an effect, open minds is used and looks not only at processes, but also at the inputs, outputs, dependencies, relationships, and influences with each other as well as with other systems before conclusions are arrived at.
Tools and techniques of Systems Thinking in Complex Projects
Causal Loop Diagrams
To attain better systems thinking, some basic understanding of systems is needed; a system cannot be restricted, so it is important to understand that a system can be anything, including mechanical, ecological, biological, economic, social, engineered, technological, or even abstract. Systems can either be open or closed; closed systems do not interact with external environment and as such receive no inputs, information, energy, or matter rom the external environment. Without information exchange, closed systems are less adaptable to changes. Closed systems are usually created artificially, for instance, a lab environment where tight regulation is required; but in projects, it is also possible to have closed systems created unintentionally. If in an organization, the sales team has no way to let manufacturing department know of a new large order, then such a system is considered a closed system. Open systems, on the other hand, receive and exchange various levels of information, energy, or matter with theenvironment6 around them: it is this interaction that makes systems that are open more adaptable to change. This is also why open systems are more complex because they have feedback with several other systems, it is not always easy to understand what the other systems are involved in. a lot of research, thought, and investigation is thus necessary to understand open systems, and even after this effort, there are some elements within a system that will not be understood. Systems are made up of five main elements; objects, attributes, boundaries, relationships, and environmental influences
Objects: refer to components, variables, parts, elements, or subsystems that constitute the system. Objects within a system exchange information, matter, and energy with other objects and with other systems; though objects can be thought of as being tangible, they can also be abstract as depicted below;
Attributes: refer to the qualities and properties of a system, which can be behaviors or measurements of effects at6a given point in time as depicted below;
Relationships: all objects in a system are related to others and in pen systems; there will be relationships between the system and other systems. As depicted below;
Boundaries: Boundaries restrict systems; open systems have boundaries that are permeable because energy, information, or matter is exchanged with, an d also received from the external environment, but in a system that is closed, the boundary cannot be permeated, as depicted below;
Environmental influences: All systems, including closed ones, exist within larger environments; open systems have an influence on the external environment that also influence them. Tis is depicted below;
Systems have an ideal equilibrium state based on present object values, conditions, relationships, and environmental influences. Systems will try to self-correct when this equilibrium is disturbed and assumptions should not be made that the ideal states of systems are also the states that are desired I the context of complex projects. Systems at, or near ideal states are fairly stable and predictable, while those far from their ideal state can be unpredictable and chaotic. Time delays always exist in stable systems between when changes are introduced and when effects are seen. Open systems are characterized by multi finality where the same results or objectives can have multiple purposes.
Using Stories and Diagrams
The effects of systems and their behaviors can be better understood by describing them textually or in a visual way through the use of diagrams. In the process of creating diagrams and images, the functioning of systems can better be understood; the relationships, components, interactions between the systems, and root causes can be better understood to help describe the systems. This approach helps in modeling simple scenarios; however, diagrams and stories are just general conceptualizations of the systems and must not be taken too literally. This because the stories and diagrams can also convey a false sense that actions are sequential, when in fact, systems is highly dynamic entities with several actions occurring simultaneously. Using causal loop diagrams, systems can be better understood when managing complex projects; the way to manage complex projects is to look at is as a system with several inputs and stakeholders. CLDs (causal loop diagrams) entail the use of circular arrows with labels to show causes and effects, time delays, and relationships for the systems components as depicted below;
Systems thinking also have levels which help in understanding causal loops through intervening events in a circular arrangement. Understanding and appreciating how causal lops work and how it affects and interacts with other loops that it can entangle with, helps project managers understand more complex issues affecting complex projects. For instance, using causal loops, recurring patterns of system archetypes can be revealed that have proven to be the most useful for identifying points of leverage and the root causes underlying difficult project challenges. This relationship is depicted in the image below;
As the completion time for projects blow out, there is added pressure to staff, especially the project manager, resulting in an increase in the number of leaving staff. Staff turnover results in the skills base being eroded; contributing to an increase in reworks and costs. The system experiences added delays as the mounting pressure is usually not immediately obvious until a crisis has developed. Hiring replacement staff also takes time and resources and all these exacerbate the downward spiral; drawing CLDs in such a situation enables leverage points to be established as depicted below;
When analyzing CLDs in complex projects using systems thinking, it is equally important that the concept of BOT (behavior over time) is well understood. Analyzing a CLD involves the use of several BOT graphs; using this approach enables a learning structure to be incorporated into a project. For instance, if staffs leave and new ones are hired, it is expected that productivity will slightly decline when new staff come in. Using the CLD and BOT, the project manager is made to resist the attempt to hire more labor when there is a detected decrease in productivity. The project manager can instead find ways of training or mentoring new staff to increase productivity; this is depicted below
System Archetypes
System archetypes are associated closely with causal loops; system archetypes capture common stories within the realm of systems thinking; they are dynamic phenomena occurring repeatedly within diverse settings. The archetypes common in projects include shifting the burden, fixes that fail, and tragedy of the commons. Within organizations, many projects use a PMO (Project Management Office) to offer essential services at competitive rates to projects being undertaken based on a system of priorities. To get the PMO’s attention, project managers can increase the priority of their project requests in unsuccessful attempts to gain some advantage over competing projects. This causes the PMO to appear overloaded and consequently, lead to services being outsourced leading to an increase in costs, defeating the need to have a PMO in the first place as a way to reduce costs. Appreciating such a dynamic explains why the intended rational actions of individuals result in a dysfunctional system of behavior. Upon detection of such a pattern, resolving the problem becomes difficult at the level of the individual project manager. Using a systems thinking approach, such as inquiring on how the long term effects of misusing the PMO be made clearer to project managers can help solve the problem, rather than looking at a single project manager.
Stock and Flow Diagrams
While CLD’s are useful system thinking tools to understand several complex situations, they get unwieldy with an increase in the number of loops. The dynamics associated with these loops are difficult to simulate with computers, and so Stock and Flow Diagrams come handy in solving these problems. In many projects, overruns are typically between 40 and 200 percent; further, recent project management techniques development does not seem to significantly7 improve the situation. For instance, typical BOT graphs that show a buildup in staffing in a project can be misleading; usually, staffing builds up and then falls as a project nears completion. It is usually slower to buildup staff than planned and usually exceeds the levels that have been planned for over an extended period. Often, a second peak is achieved when there is a need for rework and this needs correcting in the BOT graph. Further, for project duration, productivity fluctuates where it falls after a project is started until the middle of the project and starts rising towards the end of the project. Using flow diagrams at project commencement lays down the project workflow, which has two major advantages: the project resource requirements can be identified accurately, and feedback systems effects can be better modeled. Including staff co-flows can help in determining the time needed for the project and likely delays be better estimated due to resource constraints. An example of a flow diagram for staffing in projects is shown below;
Soft Systems Methodology
In projects, the conception a d design phases entails initial project conception; tis stage can benefit from the use of soft systems methodology (SSM) to clarify benefits that every stakeholder expects from the project. SSM is useful for effectively dealing with ill structured problems in projects that systems approaches associated with technology and products, as well as systems engineering did not solve. SSM seeks to work with differing perceptions of reality, and can facilitate a systematic learning process where differing viewpoints are evaluated in a way that leads to purposeful actions to pursue improvements. SSM includes the use of rich pictures and root definitions that project managers for complex projects can use in clarifying project purposes
Rich pictures
These are formal drawings expressing how people feel about situations; the goal is to achieve richness in personal expression that is not restrained by social norms and frameworks that have been predetermined. At the start of an SSM cycle, stakeholders construct rich pictures as part of interaction of a small group. Rich pictures are useful in identifying processes, structures, and concerns and shows how people perceive problems, not how they are analyzed. Issues and related processes within problem situations and are useful in surfacing metaphors and mental models associated with situations. The true diversity of the goals of stakeholders is well captured using rich pictures which can be very useful at the start of a project.
Root definition
This is a way by which concise statements can be prepared of the expected achievements of a system in its most basic form. The root definition of projects server as high level overall project purpose definitions; this is achieved by performing a CATWOE analysis so that problems are better clarified and then surfaced using rich pictures. CATWO stands for Actors, Transformations, Weltanschauung, Owners, and the Environment. Clients are the beneficiaries (or victims) of organizational processes, Actors are individuals or groups performing organization functions, Weltanschauung is the bigger world view encapsulating the problem situation and expresses how the world is viewed by the organization. Owners are the people with the ultimate say on the project, while the Environment refers to the broader constraints acting on the situation.
Organization Learning
In using systems thinking to successfully manage complex projects, certain aspects must be observed, including project learning, expansive learning based on the activity theory, knowledge management, maintenance of systems and systems theories, and effective decision making. Professional project manager requires project learning to attain success. In complex project management, project learning pertains to the tacit knowledge that people carry in terms of know-why or know-how. Organizational learning is a significant factor contributing to the ability of organizations to generate added value. Mental models such as those generated from rich pictures and rot definition as well as shared views results in new information being created within organizations. For managing complex projects using systems thinking, the SECI (socialization, Externalization, Combination, and Internalization) is useful. Socialization entails converting from tacit knowledge to tacit knowledge trough shared experiences; Externalization entails conversion from tacit knowledge to expli9cit knowledge; Combination entails converting explicit knowledge into more systematic and complex forms for sharing with others; Internalization entails converting explicit knowledge into tacit knowledge via internalization by embodying such information within the organization. Using the activity theory, the organization and project managers can distinguish between action that are temporary and goal oriented and object oriented, durable activity systems that are useful for managing complex mega projects.
Learning is a crucial asset to organizations dealing with complex projects to develop competitiveness; the organization can incorporate change effectively and manage complex projects using the systems thinking model. Knowledge management (KM) entails transforming material information and values into immaterial ones because they are more difficult to measure (Srikantaiah, In Koenig, & In Al-Hawamdeh, 2010). Internal and external information sources, in systems thinking concept, must be made available to all individuals involved with a project and the organization at large using a network. This can better be achieved through the isomorphic system in which reality is emulated so that rather than learning from past projects when they are complete, proactive project evaluation is done and learning achieved as the project is being executed. Systems, based on systems theories need to be better maintained: the general system is depicted a s a chain of inputs, processes, and their related outputs.
The project should thus be looked as a system so that the required inputs are the necessary resources such as time, labor, and finances. The system processes then become the project execution and project management tasks while the outputs of the system are the resultant products, including services and products. The projects results comply with the various critical success factors. Using systems theory, better order and structure is brought to the otherwise chaotic environments of complex mega projects. Different layers, processes, subsystems, and activities within a project are better distinguished and effective organization and project management can then be used to maintain a fucntio0ning system. Parts of this system include controls such as quality assurance and accounting, working systems such as distribution and production, information systems such as ICT (information and communications technology), and support systems such as logistics and purchasing (Aramo-Immonen & Vanharanta, 2009).
Decision making process
Effective decision making in complex projects help reduce uncertainties when decisions are being made. The process of decision making in complex projects using a systems thinking approach requires alternative focused thinking. Making decisions related to project portfolios constitute risk analysis as decisions are affected by strategies selected in managing the project, as well as competition, and resources available for the project. The thinking should also be value focused as values provide the foundation for organizational culture. As such, decision making needs to be a process that is proactive designed in line with the value focused thinking.
Project Steering Through Emulation
A project oriented organization or one involved in complex projects operates in an environment that is highly dynamic and fast changing. As such, such organizations must be able to readjust their goals fast and effectively, and learn on the fly; otherwise external and some internal factors can destroy such organizations. For simple projects, using current frameworks results in a very straightforward project execution; but for complex projects, a different approach is called for as such projects are fragmented and project steering becomes more complicated. In effectively managing complex projects, the analogy (or metaphor) of the human body can be used; it is made up of different organs with specialized roles, that function to create the human life system, influenced by both external and internal environmental factors (Aramo-Immonen & Vanharanta, 2009). For complex projects, the goal as well is to analyze the different parts that make up its system as complex projects also have different systems and subsystems that should function together to deliver the desired outcomes. The body works by being controlled by the central nervous system; to command an arm to move in a certain motion, the brain utilizes emulation; this can be adapted to complex project management in which an inverse model is used. The emulator model ought to be used in steering a complex projects’ inner functions. The emulator model is transformed to being a part of the project management system as depicted in the image below;
Figure 1: Source- (Aramo-Immonen & Vanharanta, 2009)
An inverse model connects to the forward model (emulator) and provides a first pass response to the question of the model to use; an answer is then proposed by the inverse model and a command proposal sent to the forward model that calculates the error and the inverse model responds to the error with an upgraded command (Aramo-Immonen & Vanharanta, 2009). The inverse model becomes an inherent component of the life cycle of the complex project and performs the functions of supporting strategy formation, as well as implementation in complex projects with a longer life span. Further, systems thinking in managing complex projects require that the principles of planning through and continuity principles be used. This means as many relevant stakeholders as possible should have a chance to participate in the process to ensure the decision making process is characterized by objectivity.
Conclusions
Projects have become ever more complex, yet project managers are required to deliver more quality with less while also fostering innovation in managing complex projects. Many firms have faced challenges of re-engineering their business processes, downsizing, process change, and attempts at meeting international quality standards such as ISO or attain lean manufacturing efficiencies. As such, tasks assigned to project managers are characterized by increasing complexity, with a greater requirement for interdisciplinary collaboration; more personal and technical skills are required to successfully execute projects to completion. Of all projects undertaken, research shows that between 40 and 200% are usually overshot; hence a new approach is needed to better manage complex projects. The euphemist of the triple constraints previously alluded to time, money, and scope are actually more complex as in the modern environment, they also include the aspects of quality, safety, customer satisfaction, security, consistency, and operational performance have been added to the triple constraints. This paper proposes the use of a systems approach to managing complex projects; systems approach has its origins in systems engineering. In using systems approach, the fallacies of human intelligence and behavior, which is responsible for most challenges faced in complex projects, are mitigated. The systems approach looks at the interrelationships within systems that are themselves made up of elements that interact with each other and with other systems. Most project management approaches, including Lean, TQM, BABOK, Six Sigma, PMBOK, and SEBOK all derive from systems thinking. The tools to use in systems thinking include Causal Loop Diagrams, Using Stories and Diagrams, system Archetypes, Stock and Flow Diagrams, and Soft Systems Methodology or rich pictures and root definition. In using systems thinking to manage complex projects, learning should be an integral part of the process where learning happens on the go; coupled with effective knowledge management, the management of complex projects will result in successful outcomes.
Essay Writing Service Features
Our Experience
No matter how complex your assignment is, we can find the right professional for your specific task. Contact Essay is an essay writing company that hires only the smartest minds to help you with your projects. Our expertise allows us to provide students with high-quality academic writing, editing & proofreading services.
Free Features
Free revision policy
$10Free bibliography & reference
$8Free title page
$8Free formatting
$8How Our Essay Writing Service Works
First, you will need to complete an order form. It's not difficult but, in case there is anything you find not to be clear, you may always call us so that we can guide you through it. On the order form, you will need to include some basic information concerning your order: subject, topic, number of pages, etc. We also encourage our clients to upload any relevant information or sources that will help.
Complete the order form
Once we have all the information and instructions that we need, we select the most suitable writer for your assignment. While everything seems to be clear, the writer, who has complete knowledge of the subject, may need clarification from you. It is at that point that you would receive a call or email from us.
Writer’s assignment
As soon as the writer has finished, it will be delivered both to the website and to your email address so that you will not miss it. If your deadline is close at hand, we will place a call to you to make sure that you receive the paper on time.
Completing the order and download
