The (Dedicated) Project Team

1 m a e T t c je o r P e h T

Th e ( D e dica t e d) Pr oj e ct Te a m

The ( dedicat ed) Proj ect Team lies at one ext rem e end of t he cont inuum which st art s from undert aking proj ect s using t he ( pure) funct ional form of proj ect organizat ion.

A proj ect m anager is select ed t o head a core group of personell assigned from t wo or m ore funct ional unit s of t he organizat ion and who are all required t o work full- t im e on t he proj ect in quest ion.

Proj ect Team s are usually „ cross- funct ional“ in nat ure and are a powerful m eans of dealing wit h com plex assignm ent s which m ay be difficult t o do using ot her proj ect organiza- t ion form s.

For m in g a ( D e dica t e d) Pr oj e ct Te a m

Corporation X

Human Resources Marketing Engineering Procurement Manufacturing Finance & Administration Project Manager Project Team ^{MA1 MA2 MA3 EN1 EN2 EN3 MF1 MF2 MF3 PR1 PR2}

Staff are assigned away from various departments to work full-time on the project. ^{Ot her} ^Areas

Th e Pr oj e ct Te a m - Adva n t a ge s

No st ruct ural im pact on t he funct ional organizat ion occurs – only t he t em po- rary siphoning away of funct ional specialist s from t heir respect ive areas for t he durat ion of t he proj ect or for a phase of it when heir input is required in order t o com plet e specialist t asks.

Th e Pr oj e ct Te a m - Adva n t a ge s

Proj ect com plet ion t im e is com parat ively sm aller due t o proj ect personell devot ing t heir effort s t o t he proj ect in quest ion full- t im e and also because t he flow of inform at ion and decision- m aking is generally not hindered by hierachies as it is in t he funct ional form of organizing proj ect s.

Th e Pr oj e ct Te a m - Adva n t a ge s

Mot ivat ion, feeling of iden- t ificat ion and cohesiveness are st rong in t he proj ect .

Proj ect personell share a com m on goal and t hey also share a collect ive responsibilit y for ensuring t he realizat ion of t his goal.

Th e Pr oj e ct Te a m - Adva n t a ge s

Cross- funct ional cooperat ion is st rongly encouraged and prom ot ed as a m eans of achieving t he proj ect goal.

Cross- funct ional t eam s creat e a synergy effect which can handle t asks charact erised by a high degree of com plexit y.

Th e Pr oj e ct Te a m - D isa dva n t a ge s

A m aj or crit icism of t he ( dedicat ed) proj ect t eam relat es t o t he cost fact or.

Norm ally, a larger expense is involved because resources and facilit ies are assigned t o t he proj ect on a full- t im e basis. Across proj ect s, t his m ay result in a duplicat ion of infrast ruct ure and work.

Th e Pr oj e ct Te a m - D isa dva n t a ge s

Proj ect it is – proj ect personell evolve a collect ive ident it y encapsulat ing t hem selves from t he ent erprise, giving rise t o a non- const ruct ive „ us“ and „ t hem “ out look. Som et im es t his not only underm ines t he int egrat ion of t he proj ect effort back int o m ainst ream operat ions but also t he subsequent assim ilat ion of proj ect personell back int o t heir respect ive funct ional areas.

Th e Pr oj e ct Te a m - D isa dva n t a ge s

The proj ect m ay becom e over- dependent on t he gam ut of skills, expert ise and experience held by t he proj ect personell and m ay not seek t o incorporat e fresh skills, expert ise and experience which is held by individuals and organiza- t ional ent it ies which are out side t he proj ect .

Th e Pr oj e ct Te a m - D isa dva n t a ge s

The assim ilat ion of proj ect personell back int o t heir respect ive funct ional unit s m ay prove difficult due t o t heir prolonged absence from t heir unit s and t he challenge of keeping up wit h t he developm ent s which have t aken place in t he funct ional unit s during t he proj ect period.

Pr oj e ct Or ga n iz a t ion For m s a n d Pr oj e ct Pe r for m a n ce Fin din gs Ba se d on Em pir ica l Re se a r ch

D e t e r m in in g Th e Be st Pr oj e ct Or ga n iz a t ion For m

9 The proj ect ‘s size

9 The proj ect ‘s st rat egic im port ance

9 The proj ect ‘s innovat ion requirem ent

9 The proj ect ‘s level of required int egrat ion across funct ional

delineat ions

9 The proj ect environm ent ‘s com plexit y

9 The proj ect budget and t im e const raint s

9 The proj ect resource requirem ent level of st abilit y

I n general – t he higher t he level of t hese fact ors, t he great er is t he requirem ent of aut onom y and aut horit y for t he proj ect m anager and his/ her t eam in order t o ensure t he success of t he proj ect ( i.e. a st rong proj ect m at rix or dedicat ed proj ect t eam is desirable) . Em pirical research suggest s t hat t he „ Proj ect Mat rix“ and „ Proj ect - Based Organizat ion“ m odes are t he m ost effect ive m eans of undert aking proj ect s Functional Organization Functional Matrix Balanced Matrix Project Matrix Project Organizaton Very Ineffective Ineffective Effective Very Effective

Construction New Product

Clifford F. Gray / Erik W. Larson, Project Management: The Managerial Process, 2. ed., 2003, p. 71

Em pir ica l Fin din gs:

Effe ct ive n e ss of Pr oj e ct Or ga n iz a t ion For m s

Ca se St u dy: Pr odu ct D e ve lopm e n t Pr oj e ct s

Erik W. Larson & David H. Gobeli examined the performance of different organizational structures with regard to the schedule, cost and technical performance of 540 development projects in 1987-88. The industries represented in the survey were pharmaceuticals, aero- space, computer and data processing products, telecommunications, medical instruments, glass products, petrochemical products, software development and household goods.

Pr oj e ct Pe r for m a n ce a n d Or ga n iz a t ion a l For m ( M e e t in g Sch e du le )

Pr oj e ct Pe r for m a n ce a n d Or ga n iz a t ion a l For m ( Con t r ollin g Cost )

Pr oj e ct Pe r for m a n ce a n d Or ga n iz a t ion a l For m ( Te ch n ica l Pe r for m a n ce )

Pr oj e ct Pe r for m a n ce a n d Or ga n iz a t ion a l For m ( Pr oj e ct Su cce ss V e r su s Com ple x it y a n d St r u ct u r e )

Som e t h in g t o Ke e p in M in d

An organization can be expected to apply different forms of organization for its projects contained in its portfolio, using the criteria which were considered in the previous slide.

Pure Funct ional Form Mat rix Form ( Dedicat ed) Proj ect Team s

Th e Cu lt u r e of a n Or ga n iz a t ion a n d it s I m plica t ion s for Pr oj e ct s

W h a t is Or ga n iz a t ion a l Cu lt u r e ?

Every organizat ion has it s ow n dist inct ive cul- t ure w hich set s it apart from all ot her organi-

zat ions, including t hose w hich are operat ing in

t he sam e field.

Organizat ional cult ure basically refers t o a sys- t em of shared norm s, beliefs, values, assum p-

t ions, at t it udes and behaviours w hich bind t he

m em bers of t he organizat ion t oget her and

det erm ine ‚how w e do t hings around here‘.

Re le va n ce of Or ga n iz a t ion a l Cu lt u r e

Proj ect m anagers m ust cont end w it h several,

oft en diverse cult ures and subcult ures exist ing

w it hin t he diverse organizat ional spheres of

t heir organizat ions ( e.g. senior m anagem ent ,

funct ional areas, PMO) , and out side it ( e.g.

client s, cont ract ors, suppliers, governm ent

agencies and ot her st akeholders) .

A good ‚cult ural m anagem ent st rat egy‘ can be

crucial for successfully m anaging a proj ect . Several research st udies have been conduct ed

over t he years in t he US and ot her count ries t o

det erm ine t he relat ionship bet w een Organiza-

t ional Cult ure and Organizat ional Perform ance.

Excercize caut ion in int erpret ing t he result s of

t hese researches because st udies undert aken

in one count ry reflect t he cult ural, social and

psychological cont ext of t hat count ry and m ay

not be valid for count ries like Pakist an.

Or ga n iz a t ion a l Cu lt u r e – A N ot e of Ca u t ion !

Pr oj e ct

X Fu n ct ion a l Un it s

Ot h e r Ex t e r n a l St a k e h olde r s

Pr oj e ct Cu st om e r s

Ex t . Pr oj e ct I n pu t Su pplie r s

Cu lt u r a l D im e n sion s of Pr oj e ct s

Or ga n iz a t ion a s a W h ole

I n t e r e st in Or ga n iz a t ion a l Cu lt u r e

I nadequat e m anagem ent of ‚cult ural conside-

rat ions‘ m ay cause difficult ies for proj ect s.

Therefore, it is essent ial t o include t he cult ural

com ponent as an int egral and im port ant part

of m anaging t he overall proj ect .

The cult ure of an organizat ion det erm ines t he

infrast ruct ure and processes w hich it set s up

and t he support and encouragem ent w hich it

gives t o support proj ect s.

Or ga n iz a t ion a l Cu lt u r e a n d Pr oj e ct s

Or ga n iz a t ion a l Cu lt u r e

Pr oj e ct Pe r for m a n ce

Support ive

( + )

Obst ruct ive

( - ) Pr oj e ct pe r for m a n ce is de fin e d in t e r m s of goa l a ch ie ve m e n t w it h in sch e du le a n d bu dge t a ccor din g t o a ll give n r e qu ir e m e n t s a n d t o t h e sa t isfa ct ion of a ll k e y st a k e h olde r s Or ga n iz a t ion a l cu lt u r e is de fin e d in t e r m s of t h e e x ist in g policie s, in fr a st r u ct u r e , m e t h o- dology, pr oce sse s, t ools a n d a ll for m s of su ppor t pr ovide d by t h e or ga n iz a t ion for it s pr oj e ct s Gray and Larson have proposed t en cult ural fact ors t hat are relat ed t o proj ect success:

Mem ber I dent it y

Team Em phasis People Focus Unit I nt egrat ion Cont rol

Risk Tolerance

Reward Crit eria Conflict Tolerance Means- Ends- Orient at ion Open- Syst em Focus

M e a su r in g Or ga n iz a t ion a l Cu lt u r e

D r ive r s of a “Good Or ga n iz a t ion a l Cu lt u r e ”

Wit hout t he visible, st rong, act ive and sust ained support and com - m it m ent of t op m anagem ent , it is not possible t o creat e an organizat ional cult ure w hich facilit at es proj ect s. Top m anagem ent m ust ensure t hat t he proj ect s being undert aken are aligned w it h t he m is- sion, goals and obj ect ives of t he organizat ion, t hat t he value of pro- j ect s is acknow ledged t hroughout t he organizat ion and t hat it is pre- pared t o provide all form s of support w hich proj ect s need in order t o be successfully undert aken.

D r ive r s of a “Good Or ga n iz a t ion a l Cu lt u r e ”

Proj ect s need a st rong infrast ruc- t ure support base if t hey are t o have a high chance of succeeding. Many organizat ions have set up Proj ect Managem ent Offices which perform a host of specific support - ing funct ions in connect ion w it h proj ect s. Organizat ions m ay have policies w hich require t he applica- t ion of sophist icat ed m et hodolo- gies ( such as t he PMBOK) on t heir proj ect s, are following best pract i- ces, and have devised w ays t o m inim ize frict ion bet w een int ernal proj ect st akeholders.

D r ive r s of a “Good Or ga n iz a t ion a l Cu lt u r e ”

To undert ake proj ect s successfully, an organizat ion m ust equip it s hum an resources w it h t he requi- sit e know ledge and com pet encies and fully ut ilize t heir experience accum ulat ed t hrough t heir involve- m ent in proj ect s. Organizat ions w it h a good ( proj ect m anagem ent ) cult ure invest subst ant ially in t raining program m es for t heir pro- j ect m anagers and t eam m em bers, offer handsom e incent ives, re- wards and prom ot ional opport uni- t ies for good perform ance, and accord due st at us.

D r ive r s of a “Good Or ga n iz a t ion a l Cu lt u r e ”

All proj ect s are built on t he foun- dat ions of com m unicat ion, cooperat ion and coordinat ion bet w een t heir st akeholders. Hence, it is im perat ive t hat t he cult ure of t he organizat ion support s t hese act ivi- t ies t o t he m axim um possible ex- t ent .

I n organizat ions w it h a good ( proj ect m anagem ent ) cult ure, silo m ent alit y is st rongly discouraged and ( form al and inform al) com m u- nicat ion, cooperat ion and coordinat ion across funct ional lines is endorsed.

₃

3 e ic ff O t n e m e g a n a M t c je Many organizat ions of all sizes across t he globe have est ablished „ Proj ect Manage- m ent Offices ( PMOs) “ t o serve as an organizat ional focal point for t he effect ive and efficient m anagem ent of t heir program m es and proj ect s. PMOs can perform m any im port ant funct ions and, if con- ceived and m anaged properly, are a huge asset for proj ect - driven organizat ions.

Th e Pr oj e ct M a n a ge m e n t Office

I n t e r n a l Pr oj e ct M a n a ge m e n t Su ppor t in g I n st it u t ion s in Pa k ist a n

Several public and privat e- sect or organizat ions which are operat ing in Pakist an, as w ell as t he federal and provincial governm ent s, have est ablished st ruct ures ( Proj ect Managem ent Unit s, Proj ect Monit oring Unit s) perform ing PMO funct ions t o support proj ect s w hich t hey

are undert aking.

Som e Typica l Fu n ct ion s of a “M a t u r e ” PM O

• Alignm ent of Proj ect s wit h Organizat ion’s Mission, Goals, Obj ect ives
Proj ect Port folio Managem ent
Resource Planning and Managem ent
Generat ing Aw areness in Organizat ion of Proj ect Managem ent
• St andardizat ion of Policies, Processes, Prot ocolls and Docum ent aion
Recruit m ent and Select ion of Proj ect Managers and Team Mem bers
Training in Proj ect Managem ent and Relat ed Com pet encies, Skills • Monit oring, Evaluat ion and Audit ing of Proj ect s
Maint aining a Proj ect Managem ent I nform at ion Syst em
Conseling and Ment oring of Proj ect St aff
Benchm arking Best Pract ices
Archiving Docum ent at ion on Com plet ed Proj ect s
Refining Proj ect Managem ent Met hodologies
Soft w are Tools

Pr oj e ct M a n a ge m e n t Office s: Su r ve y Fin din gs

Dr. Brian Hobbs from the Department of Management and Technology at the School of Management Sciences at the University of Quebec, Canada, has undertaken an insightful empirical research on PMOs entitled The Multi-

Project PMO: A Global Analysis of the Current State of Practice.

Click on image to download the study (pdf-documnt).

Lit e r a t u r e on t h e Pr oj e ct M a n a ge m e n t Office Click on images above to see details about the books at amazon.com

The (Dedicated) Project Team