All Change? Innovations and
Constraints to Innovation in
Project Management
Dr Harvey Maylor
Director: International Centre for
Programme Management
Cranfield University, UK
Agenda
• Introduction
• Flexible projects, insecurities, change and
innovation
• From Critical Chain to Advanced Project
Thinking
• Innovation – cases
• Innovation – constraints
• So what and what now?
Why Programme Management?
Flexible projects, insecurities,
change and innovation
Deming: “90% of the causes of
error are the fault of the
system”
• The response to project
disaster is…
• The professional institutes are
promoting…
Beyond Deming: “90% of the
causes of project problems are
behavioural”
• More process isn’t the answer
• Implications for profession
need working through
From Critical Chain
to Advanced Project Thinking
Or 10
R 15
•
Nature of constraints in
projects
– Logic
– Resources
– Policies and behaviours
•
Planning assumptions
– Normal distribution
– Handovers fixed
– Safety
•
Planning and behaviours
– Student syndrome
– Multi-tasking
– Sustained false optimism
•
Whatever happened to
criticality?
Bl 15
Pr 10
Or 30
Gr 10
Bl 30
Y 10
Y 20
In the beginning…
• Chaotic processes – consistent
with the rest of the industry
• 65 step build schedule –
nobody understood
• One major constraint was
information flow
• Totally unpredictable flows
• 2004 – missed major financial
targets – instead of completing
160 units, only completed 113.
• Depressing environment to
work in – “so much to do, so
little time.”
• High staff and contractor
turnover
• Brand widely perceived as a
leader
Advanced Project Thinking
• Phase 1 – Produce logically sound
buffered programme
• Phase 2 – Implement the weekly
updating process
• Phase 3 – Implement the weekly
delay & disruption process
Method
• Begin with the end in mind
• Ask stupid questions – what do we do and why do
we do it that way?
• Constantly challenge assumptions
• Engender optimism & engage the people
• Effectiveness THEN efficiency
• Discipline accompanies more rigorous thinking
• Required ‘meeting of minds’
• Pilot – try it out – evaluate – amend
• Make visual – charts and histograms worked
through with all staff and contractors
• Managers coached on-site – not left to it
• Tasks – combine – simplify - eliminate
Lessons Learned
• Time reductions were possible
• First benefit was detail plans – major investment of
time required to do this the first time
• Sequenced everything, reworked until met business
need
• Involve whole team (inc sales)
• Need to get wide stakeholder buy in – ran contractor
seminars
• But initial application too aggressive – not everyone
bought in. First time required reprofiling and
reinstating buffer – not happened since
• Not continuous flow, but pragmatic flow
Buffer Chart Single Project
Hook
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Buffer Chart Programme Level
Linden Western Buffer chart
as @ 18/05/07
100%
90%
80%
Chipp Ph 1
Buffer usag
70%
60%
50%
Moor FarmPh1&2
40%
Chipp Ph 2
30%
Chipp B1&C1
20%
Enterprise
10%
Chipp Ph 2B
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Project progress
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
And now…
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Chaotic processes – consistent with
the rest of the industry – stage 1
performance
65 step build schedule – nobody
understood
One major constraint was information
flow
Totally unpredictable flows
2004 – missed major financial targets
– instead of completing 160 units, only
completed 113.
Depressing environment to work in –
“so much to do, so little time.”
High staff and contractor turnover
Brand widely perceived as a leader
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Basic processes and disciplines
installed – stage 2 performance
Detailed build programme
Information flow and latest responsible
moments understood
Predictable and high flow of work and
completions
2005 build team singled out for
‘amazing transformation’ by company
chairman
2006 – hit all targets, major awards
2007 company sold – massive
increase in value
Environment buzzing
Stable staffing and contractor base
Brand actually leading practice
Innovation: Constraints
• Linden today?
• Balfour Beatty – 1995 – 4 major roadbuilding projects
• Tilbury Douglas – 2002 – Southwest
Water waste treatment works
• …and so on
Why?
1. Learning literature: process as defensive routine
“An organizational defensive routine is any policy or action that inhibits
individuals, groups, inter-groups or organisations from experiencing
embarrassment or threat and at the same time prevents the actors
from identifying the causes of embarrassment or threat.” (Argyris,
1993, p.15).
2. In the project environment, people seek stability, not from the
organisation (inherently unstable, temporary and shifting as project
progresses), the product (outcome being uncertain), but in the
process – the way they work. Tolerance of uncertainty limits
behaviour.
“Stability is all-important, even at the expense of innovation and
change” (Levy, 2005)
3. When you change underlying behaviour you might be able to break
defensive routines and create sustainable change.
“Simply changing the process won’t generate the changes you want in
performance.” (Maylor, Brady and Thomas, 2008)
So what and what now?
• The double hurdle of managing projects: absorb
uncertainty but still deliver to TCQ
• Process isn’t the answer
• Behaviours intervene – requires we move to
Behavioural Planning
• Advanced Project Thinking approach worked –
but only so far
• Incentives for individuals and greater corporate
willingness to question approaches are key to
removal of defensive routines
icpm@cranfield.ac.uk
www.cranfield.ac.uk/som/icpm