Technology and management

As many readers of this blog know, I am interested in history focused on understanding how the professional discipline of project management has evolved over the years. But digging into the history of project management inevitable involves the history of management and the evolution of technology.  And one immutable fact is that every new technology and every new idea creates winners and losers. The new ‘thing’ is implemented using project management processes and overall society benefits. The current collection of ‘history papers’ are freely available for downloading at: http://www.mosaicprojects.com.au/PM-History.html

One of the key papers is The Origins of modern PM, this paper takes a brief look (page 8 on) at the evolution of management theories .compared to the waves of innovation that drove the ‘industrial revolution’ and advancements in society through to the modern times.

Innovation2

Fighting advances in technology is pointless, as the Luddites discovered.  The origin of the name Luddite is uncertain, a popular theory is that the movement was named after Ned Ludd, a youth who allegedly smashed two stocking frames in 1779, and whose name had become emblematic of machine destroyers. What is certain is the Luddites were 19th-century English textile artisans who protested against newly developed labour-replacing machinery from 1811 to 1817. The stocking frames, spinning frames and power looms introduced during the Industrial Revolution threatened to replace the artisans with less-skilled, low-wage labourers, leaving them without work. What actually happened was the rise of the UK Midlands into an industrial powerhouse. There were winners, losers, and exploitation but overall the changes in society were to the general good.

What is not realised in the current debate around global warming and coal is that electricity produced in coal fires powers stations is a straightforward extension of steam power that came to dominance in the 1840s and is as inefficient as any other steam powered engines. What the electrical distribution system does is allow the energy derived from burning the coal to be transferred to remote locations ‘away from the fire’ for use as needed. It is convenient and electricity fuelled the next wave of innovation, but is also inefficient.

The typical thermal efficiency for utility-scale electrical generators is around 33% for coal fired plants, 66% of the energy in the coal is wasted Then an additional 30% to 40% of the power is then lost in the transmission from the power station to the consumers (mostly in local distribution, the main grid only loses between 5% and 8% of the power).  The net result only about 25% of the thermal value of the coal is available in your home or business!

This gross inefficiency is only affordable because the industry does not have to pay to clean up its pollution; most of the waste is simply discharged to the atmosphere. The raw material is not particularly safe either; around 5000 people per year are killed mining coal.

Much of the innovation driving the sustainability curve focuses on a changed paradigm. Generating energy close to where its needed using renewable energy sources. Solar hot water units generate hot water on your roof – no transmission losses. Solar voltaic cells do the same for electricity – managed properly its cost effective, for 6 months of the year we hardly need any power from the grid, winter is a different story……

Other innovations include various wind, and other generation processes that create power close to where its needed as well as renewable base load capabilities; all that is needed is the critical mass to make the technology cost effective (ie, cheap) and leadership for government to manage the changes and help the industries and people on the ‘losing’ side of the equation and plot a path into an exciting future, particularly for skilled project professionals.  As the Luddites discovered, fighting to defend a losing technology is a guaranteed way to ensure you lose.

Unfortunately, I’m still wondering when the Luddites in Canberra are going to realise the burning of coal to create pressurised steam is an invention of the 18th century, which largely replaced water power as the energy source of choice. And, that after 300 years the world is moving forward but Tony Abbot and a range of other backward looking ‘conservatives’ want to keep dragging us back into the past.

Australia needs leaders in Canberra and our State capitals, not Luddites – fighting to preserve 18th century power source in the 21st century is guaranteed to fail eventually. And what is going to be lost focusing on the past is the opportunities to gain from the emerging technologies, a lose-lose outcome.

A well planned and executed change paradigm exploits the strengths of existing capabilities, encourages the development of new innovations and manages the transition to the future whilst minimising the losses. This transition is good for project management but cannot happen without effective leadership.

Governance -v- Management

In 2012 I contributed to a scholarly article discussing The management of project management: A conceptual framework for project governance, with Eric Too from the University of Southern Queensland as lead author.

After an extended wait, the International Journal of Project Management has at last published the paper in its current November edition, along with nine other papers discussing governance.  I will post some commentary on the overall theme of governance as framed by the ten papers shortly.

In the meantime, the focus of our paper is, for an organization to create optimal value from its investment in projects there must be a clear link between the outputs created by the projects and the requirements of the organization’s business strategy. This means that organizations that have a structure in place for aligning the project deliverables with their organizational goals will be better placed to realize their investment in projects, and achieve the value defined by their business strategies. This paper examines existing research, ideas and concepts of project governance and enterprise project management, and offers a framework to build on current theory development and practice. Synthesizing existing literature of project/programme management, governance and portfolio management, this paper proposes four key elements to improve the performance of projects and hence create value for organizations. These four elements are:

Project Governance Structure

  1. Portfolio management: focused on selecting the right projects and programmes to support the organization’s strategy, and terminating ones that no longer contribute to the business success of the organization;
  2. Project sponsorship: providing the direct link between the executive and the project or programme manager, focused on the whole project lifecycle;
  3. Project Management Office (PMO): providing oversight and strategic reporting capabilities;
  4. Projects and programme support: the effective support and management of projects and programmes is the measure of an effective governance system.

The purpose of the framework described in the paper is to provide guidance to organizations in the development of effective project governance to optimize the management of projects.

An augmented version of the paper can be downloaded from: http://www.mosaicprojects.com.au/PDF_Papers/P162_The_Management_of_Project_Management_IJPM.pdf

Or the official published version from, International Journal of Project Management (2014) Volume 32, Issue 8, November 2014, Pages 1382–1394.  http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026378631300094X

Although written nearly 2 years ago, this paper is consistent with two recent White Papers on:
The Functions of Management,  and
The Functions of Governance.  

PMI’s Voices on Project Management Blog has moved

PMI Voices BlogI’ve been a regular contributor to PMI’s Voices on Project Management blog for many years.  Its old home was hidden in the depths of www.pmi.org.  Following PMI’s purchase of www.projectmanagement.com (the old ‘Gantt Head’), the ‘voices’ have moved to join a number of other themed blogs on the site.

The site is open to everyone, you need to register to post comments and download, but reading is free and unrestricted.

My first post in this new location is Influence Without Authority. You can read the post at http://www.projectmanagement.com/blog/Voices-on-Project-Management/11149/pmi  and then explore the rest of the site.

PMP for Christmas??

Santa2There are two opportunities to make the holidays a springboard for you career in 2015.

You last chance for a PMP or CAPM before Christmas is our 5 day intensive courses starting on the 1st December – these are timed to allow you to sit the exam in the week prior to Christmas.

Alternatively make good use of the ‘silly season’ and book into the courses starting on the 19th January.  Complete your training, enjoy the Australia day long weekend and be ready for work once Australia ‘wakes up’ after the summer break.

CAPM course details see: http://www.mosaicproject.com.au/capm-courses-melbourne/

PMP course details see:  http://www.mosaicproject.com.au/pmp-courses-melbourne/

New Articles posted to the Web #17

BeaverWe have been busy beavers updating the PM Knowledge Index on our website with White Papers and Articles.   Some of the more interesting uploaded during the last couple of weeks include:

And we continue to tweet a free PMI style of exam question every day for PMP, CAPM and PMI-SP candidates: See today’s question and then click through for the answer and the Q&As from last week.

You are welcome to download and use the information under our Creative Commons licence

The Functions of Governance

We have published 3 papers recently that clarify and differentiate the functions of management and the functions of governance.

The widely accepted ‘functions of management’ developed by Henri Fayol and published in his 1916 book Administration Industrielle et Generale, are summarised in: WP1094 The Functions of Management.  Fayol’s ‘functions of management are:

  • M1 – To forecast and plan,
  • M2 – To organise
  • M3 – To command or direct (lead)
  • M4 – To coordinate
  • M5 – To control (French: contrôller: in the sense that a manager must receive feedback about a process in order to make necessary adjustments and must analyse the deviations.).

These functions are to be contrasted with my Six Functions of Governance:

  • G1 – Determining the objectives of the organisation
  • G2 – Determining the ethics of the organisation
  • G3 – Creating the culture of the organisation
  • G4 – Designing and implementing the governance framework for the organisation
  • G5 – Ensuring accountability by management
  • G6 – Ensuring compliance by the organisation

The mapping of the relationship between the functions of management and the functions of governance are set out below:

Mapping of the functions

Management functions are assumed to be hierarchal with the governance inputs cascading down to lower level functions.

Management functions are assumed to be hierarchal with the governance inputs
cascading down to lower level functions.

These functions of governance were initially proposed in my ‘advisory article’: The Six Functions of Governance. Published in PM World Journal Vol. III, Issue XI – November 2014; download from here.

A more focused discussion paper has been published today in WP1096 The Functions of Governance.

Conclusion

Governance is the action of governing an organisation by using and regulating influence to direct and control the actions and affairs of management and others. It is the exclusive responsibility of the ‘governing body’, the person, or group accountable for the performance and conformance of the organisation (in a commercial organisation, the Board of Directors).

But in many situations, particularly associated with the governance of project and programs, the governing of organisations is far from effective. The amount of time and effort devoted by the ‘governing body’ to compliance and accountability, and the amount of resources wasted by ineffective and ‘competing’ management groups, can be significantly reduced if the organisation’s objectives, ethics and culture are sound.

Six core functions of governance are defined to bridge the gap between the ‘objectives of governance’ defined by Cadbury and others and the practices of governance defined by organisations such as the AICD. Hopefully discussion around the core functions of governance sparked by these papers will encourage improved governance performance.

Sources of Power

powerNo sooner had we published WP1095 Power and Authority than one of our regular correspondent pointed out we had missed the concept of ‘structural power’.  Whilst originally seen as being relevant to the discussion of power differences between sovereign nations, the concepts also apply to organisations where the characteristics of a situation can affect or determine power. Important structural sources of power include knowledge, resources, decision making and networks.

Knowledge as Power: Organisations are information processors that must use knowledge to produce goods and services. Intellectual capital represents the knowledge, know-how, and competency that exist in the organisation which can provide an organisation with a competitive edge in the marketplace. Within an organisation, the concept of knowledge as power means that individuals, teams, groups, or departments that possess knowledge that is crucial in attaining the organisation’s goals have power, but only if they use the power to advance the interested of their organisation – hording knowledge to the detriment of the organisation is destructive and self defeating. Outside the organisation, the situation is reversed; protecting the organisations intellectual property is vital to maintaining its competitive power in the market.

Control of Resources as Power: Organisations need a variety of resources, including money, human resources, equipment, materials, and customers to survive. The importance of specific resources to an organisation’s success and the difficulty in obtaining them vary from situation to situation. The departments, groups, or individuals who can provide essential or difficult-to-obtain resources acquire more power in the organisation than others, as do external suppliers in a market where the particular resource is scarce.

Decision making as Power: The decision making process in an organisation creates more or less power differences among individuals or groups. Managers exercise considerable power in an organisation simply because of their decision making ability. Although decision making is an important aspect of power in every organisation, cultural differences make for some interesting differences in the relationship.

Networks as Power: The existence of structural and situational power depends not only on access to information, resources and decision making, but also on the ability to get cooperation in carrying out tasks. Managers and individuals that have connecting links with other individuals and managers in the organisation and beyond will be more powerful than those who don’t. The power generated by social media networks is a phenomena that is still emerging and is not well understood.

An additional ‘power source’ is ‘peer pressure’ – the power held by a group over its individual members.  The White Paper has been updated to include these concepts and can be downloaded from: WP1095 Power and Authority