Managing for Projects

Here we go: welcome to the first post of a series of blog posts on the importance of managing projects for legacy! Missed the introductory one? Find it here.

Today, we are going to introduce the concept of managing for projects, based on the three levels of management of projects as conceived by Morris and Geraldi (2011):

• “Level 1: technical: that is, operational and delivery oriented;
• Level 2: strategic: managing projects as organizational holistic entities, expanding the domain to include their front-end development and definition and with a concern for value and effectiveness;
• Level 3: managing the institutional context; creating the context and support for projects to flourish and for their management to prosper.”

As a disciplined way of getting work done, project management has been around for some time now. More precisely, since the 1960’s, when the army and other governmental institutions were trying to build submarines, missiles, stay ahead of the enemies, and other similar and exciting endeavours. Project management was on the rise and it was, indeed, rocket science!

Since then, we made a hell of a progress, with Gantt charts being invented, sophisticated techniques such as critical path analysis being established, bodies of knowledge being developed, and project management becoming a recognized profession.

Yet, the principles and mindset that governed project management since the sixties hasn’t changed that much. However, the world did.

Project management is still much perceived as delivering a piece of defined scope within agreed boundaries of time and budget. Project managers are doers. If they do their part well, the cause and effect rules apply and, if they are lucky, maybe the organization receiving the project can achieve their strategic objectives. Projects, thus, are instruments, part of a simplistic and mechanist view whose main purpose is to maximize efficiency.

But is this all there is to projects and to project management?

Acknowledging this limited, although dominant, project management paradigm, Morris (1994) proposed a new model, coined 'management of projects'. This revolutionary perspective argues that the triple constraint of scope, time, and cost should not be thought of as a given but as something that is built. More importantly, the management of projects positions projects as strategic units, part of a wider picture, where context has a significant role to play and where properly setting up the project front-end determines its conditions of success. Aspects such as defining what value is, where does the project fits in terms of strategy, addressing procurement or the commercial side of projects - the front-end - are key considerations for this paradigm of managing projects.

However, no project – and no organization – is an island.

Projects do not exist in a vacuum but in a world of habits, norms, institutions and other organizations. For a company, it’s not sufficient to deliver one project right – if it is to survive, all projects carried out need to be successful. Consistent success is an imperative. That’s why managing for projects, instead of just managing projects is crucial. This view of the world is concerned with what happens within and around projects and how this surrounding context – the institutional context - influence the ability of an organization to deliver repeated and repeatable project success. We are no longer just talking about “organizations in their environment (but) the organization of the environment” (Scott, 2008: 436).

What are the conditions that need to be present in the environment for projects to flourish?

A couple of examples include:

• The establishment of an organizational project management culture, focused on ‘best practices’ and promotion of organisational learning
• The direction provided by the sponsor
• The existence of enabling support structures, such as the PMO
• The way resources are managed
• Portfolio management and the political context
• Appropriate leadership styles

Considering the above, you may think that this is not of your business, let the board take care of it. Make no mistake though: you, too, have a role to play. Even if it is just by highlighting the importance of thinking wider, by stressing the importance of creating and supporting the critical enabling factors that can make or break projects, you have a say. Make effective use of it.

Now that you know what managing for projects means, I want you to think about legacy, the topic of our next blog post: is your organization managing projects for legacy? What conditions do you think need to be in place for the project legacy to be delivered and managed? I’d love to hear your thoughts!

Have a great week and may all your projects be lucky,

Marisa

NOTE: Originally published in the Major Projects Association's Knowledge Hub.

Marisa Silva is a Senior Consultant at Wellingtone Project Management. A passionate advocate of the value of PMOs and project management, she is Secretary of the APM PMO SIG and author of “Bedtime Stories for Project Managers”. As a believer in the power of project management skills for social good, Marisa is also a mentor at Project Managers Against Poverty, and Programs Director at Project Managers Without Borders. Marisa can be contacted at [email protected].