› Forums › Managing Risk in Complexity SIG
(MRC SIG) › Working Group B: What principles are important in dealing with complexity?
-
AuthorPosts
-
Up::0
Ian, some great topics. My vote is for “The project management PM-related enablers (e.g. contracting, governance, collaboration, cost estimation, legal, HR, PA)”, with the vision that we produce an advisory paper on what may need to be demanded/negotiated with other disciplines, to be successful in managing complex projects. I think this would be a really useful product for ICCPM members.
Up::0Hi Team – We agreed at the last meeting (‘Menage a Trois’ unfortunately) to raise ideas that the Working Group might focus on next. I offer a number of thoughts for consideration:
– Review New Complex Project Leadership Competency Statement
– Different definitions of complexity to ICCPM’s definition:
– The project management PM-related enablers (e.g. contracting, governance, collaboration, cost estimation, legal, HR, PA)
– Thoughts on Expanding Heuristics for Complex Projects (building on Bent 11 in ‘How Big Things Get Done’)
– Governance
– Behaviours, Biases and Worldviews
– Single Forum for all complex project management related disciplines
Hopefully we will see more than 2-3 of us at the next meeting (9 November, I think) . But even if regular Working Group members cannot attend, please send in ideas for the next scheduled virtual gathering please? And thanks for reading – Ian
Up::0Thanks Rob for the pay system report. I believe this was known about when Canada we launched a new pay system for the Public Servants in Canada, a project called Phoenix. It was an even bigger failure, and I seem to recall that IBM used their work on the Queensland pay system in developing the disastrous Phoenix pay system. I actually published a paper (one of about 10 with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute) on the formal report proffered by a hired gun about the Phoenix fiasco (see link at Complex Project Delivery Capability Matters – Canadian Global Affairs Institute (cgai.ca)). Phoenix is yet to be sorted out 7 years after ‘go live’, with pay failures still occurring and as our Treasury Board ploughs on to replace it. Allow me to somewhat plagiarise your earlier comment, “Once again Canada covering itself in glory” (too) – Ian
Up::0Morning everyone,
Case Study 9: The Payroll System That Cost Queensland Health AU$1.25 Billion – Henrico Dolfing
Please see the link. Once again Australia covering ourselves in glory
Up::0Hi everyone,
It’s been a while since I commented on the work of the MRC SIG, or attended a meeting. I am overloaded with other things, but I do watch what is happening.
I’ve read the recent paper. Well done to everyone involved. It successfully tackles complex project management from a complexity perspective and provides leaders with some important considerations for project success. While some of those considerations should be ‘n0-brainers’ for experienced project leaders, others are less obvious and hence are in some ways more valuable.
I think that it is the combination of all of the considerations that is most powerful. Dealing well with most of them is good but if you miss <span style=”text-decoration: underline;”>any</span> of them, it will mean that you carry increased risk of sub-optimised outcomes. As such, each is what I would call a ‘critical lead indicator’. The question for us might be whether we have identified all of these critical lead indicators (or not)? Is such a list even possible?
Regardless, well done done to everyone who worked on this.
Is there a plan to publish this paper beyond ICCPM’s membership? I’ve already had one inquiry, but can’t oblige them because it is currently a “members only” document.
Regards, Richard
Up::0Thanks Rob, more content to bend my mind around.
In the first paper, I saw little to endear it to us, although I found the shared risk and contingencies strategy novel in a few ways, as demonstrated in one of the paper’s diagrams. And any conference where we can spread the word on the important aspects of executing complex projects to the infrastructure practitioners would be “one more step for mankind”.
As for the second paper suggesting issues implied by PMI Thought Leadership for further research and development, the author does admit that complex projects remains a useful body of knowledge for PMI to pursue, so they ‘get it’ as you say. Though, this would require much more than just a focus on ESG in infrastructure mega-projects as the author seems to imply. It is sad that the author never mentions ICCPM, leaving one to assume they have no knowledge of the Centre. And following my last comment, the infrastructure business in Canada remains generally ignorant of ICCPM and the need to tackle complex construction projects differently.
Beyond that, the second paper triggered three other perspectives for me:
– In terms of the suggestion of placing more emphasis on “how the company’s risk appetite aligns with its strategic vision, so that project managers can weave the right risk mindset into the fabric of their team’s way of working”, (1) it misses the point that in governments there often is no choice but to pursue a high risk complex project , these not typically embraced in democracies, though admittedly it makes a degree of sense for other organisations; and (2) if better implemented, it could reduce the number of complex projects initiated by organisations ignorant of complex project requirements, which could reduce the number of complex project failures.
– In terms of suggesting that experienced project managers apply their skills outside of projects as change managers and integration experts (also described as “coordinators”), I am not (immediately?) a fan for a number of reasons; (1) PMI does not yet embrace the issues of complex project leadership/execution, and organisations continue to fail – surely embracing complexity is a higher priority than change management and innovation as areas of focus; (2) nor do we have that many experienced complex project leaders to have them go off and be organizational coordinators – this, while there is a growing “projectification” of organisations; and (3) watering down the core business of complex project leadership in this way seems to be all wrong to me, with (4) my Machiavellian brain daring to wonder if this as a potential marketing strategy to gain more members by inviting change managers and integration experts to join PMI – my bad …
– Regarding the proposal that project managers employ more partnerships with specialist firms (meaning collaboration, though not stated), it is equally important that the owner/client parent organisation have their own people that have adequate sector-relevant domain knowledge and the experience of navigating and oversight of complex projects, so they can select and then engage partners effectively – that oversight best exercised with an integrated joint execution model. Without these enablers, we see so many municipal projects fail spectacularly in producing the desired outcomes of effective delivery (beyond the efficiency measures of cost and schedule).
Thus I see no new subjects herein for the Working Group. Change management and integration are already well covered general disciplines that I view as already generally applicable to complex project execution. Of course the members of our working group (and of ICCPM more broadly) know all of this already, but I could be missing (or misunderstood) other important thoughts in the papers. Ian
Up::0Morning Everyone,
Two new papers, for perusal and edification:
1 Strategic project management is well written, but adds nothing new, but it is nice to see others on the same path as us, (I’m starting to think there is a conference in the difference between Complex Projects/Megaprojects)
2 Alan Stretton is always worth reading. Although he does prove the PMI is still not getting it.
Attachments:
You must be logged in to view attached files.Up::0Thanks to Collin and to Davin for forwarding this. I look forward to others chiming in, but my initial response is one I have voiced before. Most of these subjects are well covered on their own right and applicable to most organisations and activities such that the uniqueness of these topics in a complex project environment is not immediately obvious to me. However, it would be essential to define the differences to add any value to ICCPM? I also think that the linkages of some of these to the other words in some strings could benefit from a few more words of explanation (e.g. project and organisational strategies). Just my two cents, I look forward to further discussing at our next session, along with what Davin offered in the previous post in terms of behavioural challenges such as worldviews – Ian
Up::0Hi Group B
Colin Smith has offered some thoughts about the work of Group B and possible future topics:
The group has really added value to ICCPM and its stakeholder community and I sincerely appreciate the work that has been done and hope that you will continue.
If you are looking for a topic we may be able to point you in a direction. I am on a Program Advisory Panel for Sydney University’s John Grill Institute for Project Leadership and I attended a meeting this morning in which they ran a poll to rank the importance of various areas of interest in PM.
See the list of topics attached. Perhaps something in this list might attract the interest of the SIG working group?
Regards
Collin Smith
Managing Director and CEO
ICCPM has also completed the second report – Considerations for Achieving Complex Project Delivery 2022 – which will now be released to ICCPM members
Cheers
Davin
Attachments:
You must be logged in to view attached files.Up::0Hi Davin and thanks for these. I can see this entire and structured behavioural analysis as a facet that I have omitted from my thinking and practice in the past. It can be applicable to all stakeholders with interest and influence, perhaps with a particular focus on the three tiers of governance. It is clearly an enabler to alignment which begets collaboration. I am left wondering whether it should be a separate element in the definition of complex project success factors, or is it a sub-element of what we already have in the last paper.
I also think I noted a contradiction between the two papers. The Management Drives paper I believe suggests that there is little one can do to mitigate behavioural conflicts within teams based on worldviews, whereas the Collaborative Management Institute suggests that such issues can be mitigated away or to some extent. Interesting, and I guess “it depends”. But I guess the key is having access to someone trained to do the analysis such as yourself and others – and getting the way-too-busy-or-cranky seniors to submit to being so assessed.
Perhaps we can explore this further in the next Working Group session further – Ian
Up::0Hi Group B
I have forwarded our latest paper to Colin for processing by ICCPM.
In our last meeting, we ranged across matters to do with people, complexity and projects, so I said I would lob a couple of papers on the forum related to the work I do in this space. My apologies if they sound somewhat like marketing blurb – I guess they are.
Anyway, for you interest or not, see attached.
Cheers
Davin Shellshear
Attachments:
You must be logged in to view attached files.Up::0Hi Rob and thanks for this one. One could almost say that this project is worse in its execution than the City of Ottawa’s Phase One LRT project, but then it is done by two different authors . (As an update to the Ottawa LRT, a recent quote from the City: “Over the next 25 years, Ottawa city staff say the city can expect $3.7 billion less in local transportation system fares, with post-pandemic hybrid work and the challenged LTR (Phase One unreliability and Phase Two now 20% over budget, one year late and yet to be completed) — or $100 million per year in net present value. As a result, building the final planned extension to Ottawa’s troubled light-rail transit system is no longer an affordable option, at least for the next 25 years [had been targeted for commissioning in 2031].” This is a rather sobering indictment, but what can happen as the Business Case changes while the project is in train and well advanced.
One notes all the usual culprits in the Edinburgh Tram Inquiry report, but I thought that the recommendations left a lot to be desired from a complexity perspective (then again, I am not a Scot).
I have included my ‘take’ on the lessons that arose from my personal data mining and reflection, for you and for anyone interested. Comments are welcome.
Rob – I have yet to tackle the 50-page book you have suggested, but I may get to it in time. Ian
Attachments:
You must be logged in to view attached files. -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.