- Email: [email protected]
Systems thinking and project management — time to reunite
Systems thinking and project management time to reunite K T Yeo
The practice of project management has its origin in systems analysis and systems engineering. Systems analysis requires the setting of clear and credible objectives and theformulation of viable alternatives. Systems engineering is goal-seeking, and emphasises communication and feedback control. This hard approach was found to be inadequate in deal&g with soft, ill structured, ambiguous problems. A soft systemic ~lethodotogy is reco~~mended US a eomp~ement which encourages purposeful m~lti~earn~ng and the dellelop~nei~tof enriched mental rapabi~ity or models, individually and collectively within an organization. The purpose of the paper is to build bridges to link project management with the extended body of knowledge in systems thinking, incorporating the soft systemic methodology. Keywords: systems thinking, soft systems methodology
Systems thinking has, over the past three decades, emerged as one of the most important intellectual disciplines, and it has provided a powerful mental frame of reference in understanding problem situations and in guiding day-to-day decision making. Research on systems thinking and its application to solving management problems began in the 1950s. It was the development of systems analysis (SA) and systems engineering (SE), mainly for applications in the defence and aerospace establishments, that initiated the systems movement. SA is a systematic approach that deals with the problems of the identification and selection of alternative proposals, while SE takes the decision on the best alternative as given, and concentrates on the implementing of such a proposal. SE has, from the 196Os, provided the basis for Schoolof Mechanical& Production logical
University,
Nanyang
Vol 11 No 2 May 1993
Avenue,
Engineering, Nanyang Singapore 2263
Techno-
formulating policies and procedures in major defencesystems acquisitions. The Department of Defense (DOD) of the USA has since issued a series of DOD instructions on a systems approach to program management. For instance, the DOD Instructions on the Cost/Schedule Control System Criteria (CjSCSC), or C-specs, stipulate a structured approach in the organization, planning, control, and data management of implementation. The SE approach has program provided the conceptual basis for the development of the many modern project-management concepts, procedures and techniques that are familiar today. Examples of such modern project-management concepts and techniques are the work-breakdown structure, the organization-breakdown structure, and the responsibilities-assignment matrix as a structured basis for project planning and organization, earned-value methods for progress measurement, variance analysis and control, and engineering-change control and configuration management. There has been, however, a gradual shift in emphasis in systems thinking from the structured, or hard, ‘systematic’ approach in the 1950-60s to a soft ‘systemic’ approach in the 1970-80s’. The shift to the soft systems thinking, especially in the 198Os,has caused some serious rethinking about the performance of organizational tasks and problem-solving methodologies. Special attention is given to soft, ill structured, problem situations, especially those involving human behavioural factors. The concerns are about issues related to culture, value systems, attitudes, human perception, meaning, and learning in human activities, both at organizational and individual levels. The purpose of this paper is to build bridges between systems thinking and projectmanagement practices, to emphasise a soft systems methodology, and to offer new perspectives on how to improve project managers’ creative problem-solving capabilities.
0263-7863/93/02011 l-07 0 1993 Butterworth-Heinemann
Ltd
111
HARD SYSTEMS THINKING Systems analysis and systems engineering correspond to the two main phases of a project lifecycle, with the former dealing with preproject economic analysis, and the latter with project engineering and management. Essentially, SA determines ‘what’ is to be done, which is often a strategic decision-making process, while SE focuses on ‘how’ to do it, which is in the realm of operational management. Both approaches strictly follow a hard-systems mental framework, and have been adapted and translated into policies and procedures in solving management problems.
Systems analysis SA was first developed by the RAND (Research and Development) Corporation in the USA in the 195Os, mainly to support defence applications. SA basically adopts a management-by-objectives (MBO) mentality. It requires the setting of clear objectives and the formuIation of alternatives from the outset as the first step in initiating the planning process. Broad appraisals of the economic outcomes of the various alternative proposals are carried out. Computer-aided project-cost and economic mod& are normaI~y used to generate a set of economic indicators which are compared with predetermined performance criteria. Relatively sophisticated project economic-evaluation models have been deveIoped since the early 1970s with the help of mainframe computers. Thompson’s work’ in developing the CASPAR model in the early 1970s was one of the major pioneering efforts in this area. The decision on the selection of the best alternative is based on how closely the economic indicators, such as the net present value (NPV), the internal rate of return (IRR), the payback period, and the maximum cash exposure, meet the performance criteria. In systems analysis, the emphasis is on rational thinking, and it makes certain assumptions, i.e. that * clear and definitive objectives can be defined in the early problem-solving or project stage, l alternative means of achieving the objectives can be found. However, of course, in practice, such ass~mptiuns are not always feasible when dealing with soft, ill structured, real-world pr5blems. The hard systems approach of SA finds any ambiguity of objectives, or the lack of firm definitions of systems or project r~uireme~ts~ intolerable, and considers such problem situations to be highly uncertain and ~nmana~eable~ The RAND-type SA approach was not designed to cope with the large number of soft and ill structured problem situations, especially those that deal with human behavioural problems.
butions to systems thinking through their practices in the design, production and construction of complex physical systems to serve predetermined needs and to meet clearly defined objectives. The practice of SE is a natural development of the scientific approach which gives emphasis t5 rational and logical thinking. Its application in dealing with problems of high structural complexity has proved to be effective. Structural complexity is normally characterized by a large number of system components, and intricate interrelati5ns and interactions between these components. The systems concepts have generally found favour with professional engineers and managers in dealing with problems of such structural complexity, SE is characterized by a number of core systems concepts.
Coresystems concepts The core systems concepts have two pairs of ideas’: emergence and hierarchy, and communication and control. The emergence principle states that a system exhibits properties which are meaningfu1 only when they are attributed to the whole, and not to its parts. For instance, the productive and revenue-venerating potential of an offshore oiI-production system is an emergent property of the ~ombiued operations of the drilling, oil and gas processing, delivery, and submarine pipeline or tanker transportation subsystems. Similarly, project management as a purposeful human-activity system exhibits its creative emergent properties as a whole, and derives its purpose and meaning from its organization and component planning and control activities in creating a designed physical entity according to specifications, on time, and within budget. The systems concept emphasises the ordered and structured wholes, which are purposeful synthesis and the integration of their components. System components are invariably structured as a hierarchy with various levels of resolution. Lower-level subsystems may also exhibit their relevant emergent properties. For instance, the drilting, oil and gas processing, and delivery subsystems are separate system wholes which have their own emergent properties that are derived from the functioning of their respective subcomponents. Communication and control have special significance in open human-activity systems. The process of communication through the timely transmission and distribution of information is necessary for the purpose of regulation and control. The overall performance of a system, and sometimes its survival, whether it be a designed physical entity or an organic human-activity system, are dependent on effective communization and certain controlling mechanisms based on timely and accurate feedback information.
Hard systems thinking and project control Systems engineering The development of SE is closely linked with that of SA. Both coincided with the age of heavy engineering in the 1950-60s, when Polaris submarines and other large-scale weapon systems, as well as large complex chemical and process pfants, were being constructed. For the past few decades, professional engineers have made major contri112
In hard systems thinking, organizations are viewed as relentless goal-seeking machines. The emphasis is often on the compliance of the systems procedures. Within the project entity, project activities or tasks and manpower are often organized into multilayered hierarchies, usually in the form of a work-breakdown structure (WSS) and an organizational-breakdown structure International
Journal of Project IManagement
K
(OBS), respectively. The latter is suitably staffed to execute the defined project tasks. The integration of the two structures creates a 2-dimensional responsibilityassignment matrix (RAM). The integration of tasks and human organization gives substance and structure to the project-management system. The need for feedback control in project management gives prominence to the baseline performance measurement and control. The DOD instructions on the performance-measurement system” (PMS) outline a set of Cost/Schedule Control Systems Criteria (CjSCSC) or C-specs for major defence-systems acquisitions. The development and application of PMSs are important evidence of the influence of the hard systems-engineering approach to project management. The SE approach emphasises discipline and compliance to the established policies and procedures. For instance, noncompliance with the CjSCSC requirements may disqualify a wouldbe defence contractor, or cause delay in progress payment by the client4. In this case, the client is the DOD, who also maintains constant surveillance on the contractors’ program-management and control systems to ensure that they continue to meet the client’s reporting and monitoring requirements. The CjSCSC outlines six aspects of systems and control requirements: organizing, planning and budgeting, accounting, variance analysis, revisions, and data access and management. The systems procedures require clear project objectives, firm systems requirements, definitive planning, and budget baselines, and continual performance measurement, reporting, and control against the established objectives and control baselines. The data-access and revisions criteria as stipulated in the C-specs require the contractors to maintain a common database system from which an appropriate level of summary can be obtained. The database is also required to capture and keep track of current and forecast trends and any approved changes against the baselines. The database system is there to ensure effective communication of project information to both the client and the contractor’s senior management. The performance information is used by the client for monitoring and progress-payment purposes, and by the contractor’s senior management for internal tracking and control. The systems approach has been further encouraged and enhanced in recent years, and this is mainly attributed to the widespread application of computerized project-management information systems. In many parts of the world, especially for public-sector construction projects, the clients are now insisting that the would-be contractors must use computerized systems for project scheduhng and control as a prerequisite for bidding for such projectG. In the private sector, the majority of the international construction firms, especially the US firms, have been using the PMS approach based on the C/SCSC Criteria for several decades, drawing initial experience from the defence and aerospace industries.
SOFT SYSTEMS
THINKING
The hard systems thinking discussed means-end paradigm with a strong Vol 11 No 2 May
1993
above represents a emphasis on disci-
T
YE0
pline, goal seeking and end-item accomplishment. Professional project managers tend to accept such a paradigm or ‘world view’, and see the setting of, and commitment to, clear and credible objectives, communication and control mechanisms as one of the most important ingredients in successful project management6. Project managers are more concerned with ‘how’ to perform the tasks, and prefer taking ‘what’ as already having been decided by other authorities. Obviously, they are using an SE mental frame of reference. However, the hard systems approach was found to be inadequate in dealing with the many soft, ill structured, problem situations in the real world, such as those encountered in the conceptual stage of project definition, or those dealing with strategic planning issues, when the definition of clear objectives and formulation of viable alternatives can itself be problematic. The soft and probably ‘messy’ real-world problems often defy precise formulation in the hard sense. For instance, projectmanagement situations outside traditional engineering construction, especially those dealing with the development of large information systems, the formulation of a long-term marketing strategy, the research and development of a new drug, or even the launching of a major organizational restructuring initiative, are potentially soft, ill structured and ambiguous, at least during the initial stage of the project. Checkland and Scholes’, from their more than two decades of research in using the systems approach for solving soft and ill structured problems, have developed and refined a Soft Systems Methodology (SSM). The action research that they used was mainly conducted in the setting of some large corporations and government agencies in the UK. The SSM is described as ‘systemic’, in comparison to the hard ‘systematic’ approach.
Soft systems methodology The SSM is built on the concept of a notional purposive human-activity system (HAS), which is an intellectual construct of an ideal type. The function of such an ideal type, represented as a conceptual model for dealing with a specific problem situation, is to enable comparisons to be made with the perceived reality. The comparison stimulates meaningful and focused debates if the reality deviates considerably from the conceptual model. Figure 1 shows Checkland and Scholes”*’ original 7stage sequence of the SSM. It is suggested that this sequence need not be followed precisely, and, indeed, it can be used out of sequence, as dictated by the problemsolving circumstances and the experience of the problem solver. This SSM model has two parts: the perceived reality and the conceptual model. To start with, there must be at least one person who considers that there is a problem situation that needs to be improved. This is followed by an appreciation and expression of the problem situation in question. The initial stages are the ‘finding out’ stages. The result is a ‘rich picture’ of observed reality or a problem situation which may involve unresolved issues, conflicts, and other problematic and interesting features. Prior to the construction of the conceptual models, so-called root definitions have to be stated. The purpose 113
Systems
thinking and project
management
-
time to reunite
Real world Systems thinking about real world
models of the actwty
Figure
systems
1. 7-stage sequence of SSM
of a root definition is simply to identify the transformation process (T) resulting from a purposeful problemsolving activity, the customers (C) as the potential beneficiaries or victims of such a process, the actors (A) or the problem solvers, the problem owners (0) who can stop the activity, the prevailing environment (E) or constraints, and the relevant world-view or Weltanschauung (W) involved. The expected result of the transformation process can be found in the environment. A root definition is therefore a carefully phrased statement of intention expressed in terms of the six CATWOE elements. The construction of the conceptual model, which can be expressed pictorially, is based on a variety of idea sources, such as empirically observable and historically meaningful experiences, ideas from other intellectual models, and even creative insights.
Systemic conceptual models The ‘conceptual model’ is built directly from the processes, expected outcomes and expressed world views defined in the root definition. It is a conceptual model of the ideal type, and a pure intellectual construct using pure logic, as originally suggested by Checkland’. However, the author of this paper suggests that the conceptual model represents a mental map or mental model which is necessarily bounded and influenced by the aggregate of past experience or the lack of it, or by the richness or poverty of past mental models of the individual managers or problem solvers involved. At the same time, it is inevitable that the conceptual model will be influenced by the current perception and appreciation of the reality of the problem situation concerned. It is not unreasonable to argue that the conceptual model cannot be created in a vacuum and without any prior knowledge or appreciation of the reality of the problem situation. An intellectual model that is based on pure logic, and does not bear any resemblance to reality, is likely to be rejected as irrelevant or purely fantastic. However, of course, one must not forget that the conceptual model cannot be a mere mapping or description of the reality. Otherwise, there will be no problem to solve and no change to make if there is no difference between the conceptual model and the reality. The main purpose of the conceptual model, according to Check114
land, is to help generate meaningful debate among the problem solvers or participants. In the context of project management, professional project managers or planners may reconstruct their conceptual models of how to deal with a complex project situation on the basis of insights from other systems models and relevant concepts. Examples of such projectmanagement related models are the concepts of planning, organizing, communicating, coordinating and feedback control as prescribed in the performancemeasurement systems criteria mentioned above, and concepts of the system-development lifecycle and systemic synergy. Other relevant concepts and theories in psychology, organizational behaviour, power and politics, sociology and economics may also guide and enrich the managers in the construction of adequate and relevant mental models.
Conducting
debates in SSM
The value of using SSM indeed lies in the purposeful and focused debating, learning, and conceptua!ization process initiated by comparing the real-world problems with the idealized or rationalized conceptual model(s). For instance, in relation to problem solving in strategic planning, Mintzberg* suggested that successful planning rarely, if ever, takes place in solitary contemplation; rather, the elements of strategy usually come together in the heat of battle (debate). The accepted model at the end of the purposeful debating and mutual learning process should represent a crystallization of collective wisdom from all those who are involved. In brief, the participants argue, debate and learn their way to a solution which helps to improve the originally conceived and probably messy and even ambiguous problem situation. The SSM can also be used with other methodologies which help in the conduct of the debates and help to stimulate concentrated thinking and learning. For instance, the critical success-factor (CSF) analysis developed for information-technology project planning helps the participants and decision makers to debate and redefine the needs and objectives of the corporation, and to rethink its organizational tasks. The CSF methodology was first used by Rockart’ to identify chief executives’ data needs. It was later further expanded to include different levels of management, and subsequently developed into a strategic-planning tool. At the strategicplanning level, CSF analysis helps the managers to reexamine the company’s mission and goals, express concerns over the ongoing business environment and corporate situation, identify those key factors that are critical to the success of the company in meeting its goals, and find ways to develop effective solutions to overcome any barriers. The CSF method uses interviewing and discussion sessions to encourage participating managers to express concerns or problem situations that may hinder the success of the organization. The CSFs are simply defined as those few important things that a corporation or the managers must do well to ensure a company’s success. The CSF analysis encourages a free and open exchange of views and concerns between the problem owners and International
Journal
of Project
Management
K T YE0
solvers, and even the client, who are the stakeholders as defined in SSM’s CATWOE elements. The CSF debating process helps the participating executives to appreciate better their own corporate environment and any specific problem situations that they face. At the operational level, CSFs are those key issues that help to define whether an organization is achieving its goals and objectives in a changing environment.
SSM FOR PROJECT MANAGEMENT The research into and study of project management as a professional discipline in the past two to three decades has apparently been biased to the hard systems approach, and it has heavily emphasised quantitative techniques in project planning, scheduling and control. Project-network analysis using PERT or CPM, earnedvalue measurement, variance analysis, cost-estimating techniques, risk analysis, Monte Carlo simulation, sensitivity analysis, cost modelling, and, lately, expert systems are almost synonymous with ‘modern’ project-management approaches and techniques”. However, the problem of consistent and often excessive cost overruns of 4%500% over the initial estimates and frequent programme slippage are common phenomena in the management of major projects”. One of the most fundamental causes of the problem is change. There are changes in design concepts, engineering specifications, scope of work, and technologies, and changes in the macroeconomic and political environment. There are also other problems relating to the competence of management personnel, human perception and judgement, and differences in culture and value systems. To be systematic is to do things correctly or efficiently with clear objective(s) in mind, However, firm and clear objectives and courses of action are not always feasible, especially when dealing with large projects that utilize new and unfamiliar technology. There is also the tough question of whether the right things are being done in the first place when working under pressure in a rapidly changing project environment. In strategic decision making, or in preproject planning, it does pay to take a little longer to concentrate and think through all the related issues from different perspectives to create the rich picture of the reality, and subsequently to construct an enriched mental model that will lead to satisfactory problem solving. This process can be achieved by resorting to collective wisdom, and by paying attention to the soft, ill structured and ambiguous problems and issues. This is adopting a soft systemic thinking mentality.
More about mental models The concept of mental models can be further comprehended using Mintzberg?? idea, as follows. ‘Managers, like everyone else, use their information to build models of their world, which are implicit synthesized apprehensions of how their organisations and environments function. Then, whenever an action is contemplated, the manager can simulate the outcome using his implicit model.’ The value of mental models lies in the provision of a mental frame of reference to diagnose and structure perceived real-world problem situations. For any mental Vol 11 No 2 May 1993
model to be useful, it must be adequate and relevant. The characteristics of the mental models are deemed to influence the problem-solving behaviours. The richness or poverty of a mental model determines the scope of the relevant solution space in a problematic project situation. To develop further the concept of mental models derived from soft systemic thinking, their relevance in tackling project situations with great uncertainty will be explored. The project scenario is similar to those faced during the early stage of the Channel Tunnel project and the recent project proposal to dam the three gorges of the Yangtze River in China, which were plagued with problems of great uncertainty. Examples of similar project scenarios, although with a lesser degree of uncertainty, are those faced during the feasibility study of a mass rapid-transit system to solve chronic traffic-congestion problems in a metropolis, or the design of a new aircraft using advanced technology. During the formative stage of such projects, it is likely that the decision makers or problem solvers in the preproject planning phase may not have a good grasp of the problem situation. The problem situation can be considered as being fuzzy and ill defined. This may imply, on the part of the decision makers, an inability to decide clearly on the project objectives, scope and specific requirements. They may have difficulty in defining the relevant problem variables and task involved, and even in determining what constitutes a desired and achievable outcome. They may not have a clear image of the end stage or the end-item accomplishment. Using the SSM terminology, this is to say that there is difficulty in determining the root definitions of relevant purposeful human-activity systems and their constituent CATWOE elements. In the above project scenario, the decision makers or problem solvers do not yet possess the necessary mental models that are adequate for problem framing and structuring. With a lack of adequate and relevant mental models, they will not be able to read the project situation with any degree of confidence. They may have to struggle to start the problem-solving process, and it may be haphazard.
Some systemic insights The main cause of the above problem situation is that of ambiguity. The problem of ambiguity is due to the lack of knowledge, prior experience, relevant information, or, worst of all, sheer ignorance. There may be a problem of discontinuity, in that conventional methods or existing technologies are found to be inadequate or unsuitable in the new situation. The degree of ambiguity and uncertainty is not exogenous. It is relative to the capacity and richness of the collective mental models of the group of decision makers or problem solvers. The degree of uncertainty and perceived ambiguity can be aggravated owing to the incompetence of the project manager and his/her team. Human politics, not at all surprisingly, may also contribute to uncertainty. This can be caused by confusion due to ignorance displayed in the politicking process, and by contradictions due to paradoxes and irreconcilable conflicts of interests. Ambiguity may arise owing to the presence of more than one 115
Systems t~l~nkingand project rn~~~ge~~~ent - time to r~un~t~ dominating view which attaches different meanings to, and reaches different interpretations of, issues or choices of criteria. Checkland” has indeed suggested that organizations should not be treated purely as ‘goal-seeking machines’, but as having discourses, cultures, political interplays, tribes, quasifamilies, and a network of tasks and communications. Both hard and soft systems methodologies are complimentary and inseparable, and both are needed to deal with problems of complexity and ambiguity in human situations. The complexity is not just manifested in terms of the problems of tasks or organizational structures being large and intricate, but also in terms of other social, political and cultural biases, preconceptions, and the idiosyncrasies of the human actors. In viewing project management as a human-activity system, there is a problem of perception. Perception is one’s view of things and events. Individuals are quite capable of attaching different meanings to, and reaching different interpretations of, the same issue. People view the world through coloured lenses according to their declared or undeclared world views or value systems. The power of perception is vividly demonstrated in ‘the beauty and the witch’ exercisei4. In this exercise in perception, two groups of people can see the same picture, and disagree, and yet both are right, depending on their perspectives or mental maps. One group sees a beautiful young woman, while the other group sees an ugly old witch. Both groups have earlier been given separately well defined pictures of a beauty and a witch. Their mental maps have been conditioned. There are useful lessons that a professional project manager can derive from such psychological exercises. Most project managers are trained in technical fields, and many of them are proud professional engineers who tend to be task-oriented. They are mainly motivated by end-item accomplishment, i.e. when the projects are successfully commissioned and handed over. These tough-minded task managers can usually be found in the heavy-engineering and construction industries.
Change, learning and managemeut competence In the new age, change is inevitable, as people are less likely to be satisfied with their perceived reality. There is relentless competition, on one’s doorstep and elsewhere. The new business environment is characterized by a high rate of change and a high level of connectivity. Business enterprises as purposive human-activity systems, using the SSM terminology, have to be highly dynamic and organic as a living organism which has the capacity to learn and respond to changing circumstances and demands. The capacity and willingness to learn continuously, and the development of core competences, will be the important personal qualities of project managers in the future. Intellectually, their knowledge will be more broadly based, and they will have interests in other nontechnical fields. In systemic terms, they will develop a repertoire of multidimensional mental models, and continuously enrich them through purposive training and new experiences. They will use such extended mental capacities to create larger solution spaces to deal with problems of higher complexity and ambiguity, under varying circumstances. They will learn new ways of framing and solving problems, and continue to reconstruct their current mental frame of reference. They will have the courage to challenge the existing norms and conventional wisdoms. Psychologically, they will develop the capacity and willingness to lead, a sense of commitment, and a broad behaviour style with different levels of corporate management, project-team members, customers, contractors and suppliers. There will be few prospects for an introverted narrow specialist in project leadership. Learning at the organizational level is also vitally important. A corporate culture and a committed leadership that encourage learning and the sharing of knowledge and experience are prerequisites for a learning organization. Organizational learning is essential to both personal and corporate performance. Ari de Geusi6 believes that the ability to learn faster than one’s competitors may be the only sustainable competitive advantage.
Beyond engineering construction Project management as a professional discipline is undergoing radical change. There are now many new fields for the practice of the science and art of project management which go beyond traditional heavy-engineering construction. Barnesi has discussed the application of project management to innovations and business success. He quotes a director of a UK high-technology company who views a corporation as a living organism. The living organism has to change and adapt as it goes along, or it dies. This is not quite hard systems thinking. An SE approach which demands clear and credible objectives and definitive tasks, as discussed earlier, is not likely always to be feasible in an innovation-oriented high-technology enterprise. The setting of clear objectives and the formulation of definitive alternatives from the outset are a luxury. Even an initially clear objective is also subject to change under rapidly changing circumstances. 116
CONCLUSIONS The title of this paper has been deliberately chosen in response to an earlier paper by Checkland’ in which he asks whether it is time to unite information systems and systems thinking. The author of this paper considers the work on SSM as a complement to traditional systems thinking to be important and relevant to the field of project management. The secret of success in project management, as in any other field of management, is learning, especially when dealing with soft, ill structured and initially ambiguous problem situations. The learning has to be continual, purposeful and focused. The learning process that is stimulating and purposeful brings futfilment and meaning to those who are involved, in the course of helping to contribute to the overali. objectives. The practice of project management has its origin in systems analysis and systems engineering, and it is time International
Journal
of Project
Management
K T YE0
to reunite it with the extended body of knowledge in systems thinking. The extended systems thinking incorporates the traditional systems approach, soft systems thinking, and other relevant systems methodologies.
REFERENCES
4
5
6 7 8 9 10
11
Checkland, P B Systems Thinking, Systems Practice John Wiley, UK (1981) Thompson, P Cons~r~ciion Economics and Organisafion McGraw-HiIl, UK (1981) Perfor~~~ance ~easurerne~~~ Sysrem ,for Selecred Ac~~isitjoFzs US Department of Defense, USA (1977) Fleming, Q W Put Earned Value (CjSCSC) Into Your Management Control System (2nd Ed.) Humphreys & Associates, Laguna Hills, USA (1983) Yeo, K T ‘Implementing a successful IT strategy for contracting firms’ Int. J. Project Manage. Vo19 No 1 (1991) Gabriel, E ‘Teamworkfact and fiction’ Int. J. Projett Manage. Vol 9 No 4 (1991) Checkland, P and &holes, J Sofl Spew ~efhod” ology in Action John Wiley, UK (1990) Mintz~rg, H Mintzberg on ~anageFne?z~ Free Press, USA (1989) Rockart, J F ‘Chief executives define their own data needs’ Harvard Bus. Rev. (Mar-Apr 1979) Yeo, K T ‘Forging new project value chain-paradigm shift’ ASCE J. Manage. Eng. Vo17 No 2 (199 I) pp 203-212 Morris, P W G and Hough, G H The Anatomy qf
Vol 11 No 2 May
1993
major Projects John Wiley, USA (1987) 12 Mintzberg, H ‘Planning on the left side and managing on the right’ Harvard Bus. Rev. Vol 54 No 4 (1976) pp 49-58 systems and systems 13 Checkland, P B ‘Information thinking: time to unite?’ Znt. J. Zec Manage. Vol 8 (1988) pp 239-248 i-i Covey, S R 7 Habits of Highly Effective People Simon & Schuster, USA (1989) - why project management 15 Barnes, M ‘Innovation is essential to successful businesses’ Int. J. Project ~unage. VoI 9 No 4 (199 1) 16 de Geus, A ‘Planning as learning’ Harvard Bus. Rev. (Mar-Apr 1988) pp 70-74 Khim-Teck Yea is an associafe professor at the School of Mechanical and Production Engineering, Nanyang Technological Uniuersiry, Sagapore. His currenf interests are in fhe management qf technology, svsfems thinking andpracfice, information systems, and project mattagemeni in newjieields.He received a BEi~g,~u~l fhe Uniz>ersityof Singapore, an MSe and a PhD from fhe Uf~il~ersit~qf Manchester fnstiiufe of Scienceand Technology, UK, and an MBA from Sfratlrclvde Unit)ersif_v. UK. He gained h>s indusfrial experience ,frorn fhe utilities, offshore oil and gas, and aerospace indusfries. He worked,fbr Foster Wheeler, BNOC and Brifoil during 1975-83, and was attached fo Grumman Aerospace in 198748. He has been acfice in consulfing in project-management and sysfems-related work ,for major corporations in Singapore and Chirra.
117
The practice of project management has its origin in systems analysis and systems engineering. Systems analysis requires the setting of clear and credible objectives and theformulation of viable alternatives. Systems engineering is goal-seeking, and emphasises communication and feedback control. This hard approach was found to be inadequate in deal&g with soft, ill structured, ambiguous problems. A soft systemic ~lethodotogy is reco~~mended US a eomp~ement which encourages purposeful m~lti~earn~ng and the dellelop~nei~tof enriched mental rapabi~ity or models, individually and collectively within an organization. The purpose of the paper is to build bridges to link project management with the extended body of knowledge in systems thinking, incorporating the soft systemic methodology. Keywords: systems thinking, soft systems methodology
Systems thinking has, over the past three decades, emerged as one of the most important intellectual disciplines, and it has provided a powerful mental frame of reference in understanding problem situations and in guiding day-to-day decision making. Research on systems thinking and its application to solving management problems began in the 1950s. It was the development of systems analysis (SA) and systems engineering (SE), mainly for applications in the defence and aerospace establishments, that initiated the systems movement. SA is a systematic approach that deals with the problems of the identification and selection of alternative proposals, while SE takes the decision on the best alternative as given, and concentrates on the implementing of such a proposal. SE has, from the 196Os, provided the basis for Schoolof Mechanical& Production logical
University,
Nanyang
Vol 11 No 2 May 1993
Avenue,
Engineering, Nanyang Singapore 2263
Techno-
formulating policies and procedures in major defencesystems acquisitions. The Department of Defense (DOD) of the USA has since issued a series of DOD instructions on a systems approach to program management. For instance, the DOD Instructions on the Cost/Schedule Control System Criteria (CjSCSC), or C-specs, stipulate a structured approach in the organization, planning, control, and data management of implementation. The SE approach has program provided the conceptual basis for the development of the many modern project-management concepts, procedures and techniques that are familiar today. Examples of such modern project-management concepts and techniques are the work-breakdown structure, the organization-breakdown structure, and the responsibilities-assignment matrix as a structured basis for project planning and organization, earned-value methods for progress measurement, variance analysis and control, and engineering-change control and configuration management. There has been, however, a gradual shift in emphasis in systems thinking from the structured, or hard, ‘systematic’ approach in the 1950-60s to a soft ‘systemic’ approach in the 1970-80s’. The shift to the soft systems thinking, especially in the 198Os,has caused some serious rethinking about the performance of organizational tasks and problem-solving methodologies. Special attention is given to soft, ill structured, problem situations, especially those involving human behavioural factors. The concerns are about issues related to culture, value systems, attitudes, human perception, meaning, and learning in human activities, both at organizational and individual levels. The purpose of this paper is to build bridges between systems thinking and projectmanagement practices, to emphasise a soft systems methodology, and to offer new perspectives on how to improve project managers’ creative problem-solving capabilities.
0263-7863/93/02011 l-07 0 1993 Butterworth-Heinemann
Ltd
111
HARD SYSTEMS THINKING Systems analysis and systems engineering correspond to the two main phases of a project lifecycle, with the former dealing with preproject economic analysis, and the latter with project engineering and management. Essentially, SA determines ‘what’ is to be done, which is often a strategic decision-making process, while SE focuses on ‘how’ to do it, which is in the realm of operational management. Both approaches strictly follow a hard-systems mental framework, and have been adapted and translated into policies and procedures in solving management problems.
Systems analysis SA was first developed by the RAND (Research and Development) Corporation in the USA in the 195Os, mainly to support defence applications. SA basically adopts a management-by-objectives (MBO) mentality. It requires the setting of clear objectives and the formuIation of alternatives from the outset as the first step in initiating the planning process. Broad appraisals of the economic outcomes of the various alternative proposals are carried out. Computer-aided project-cost and economic mod& are normaI~y used to generate a set of economic indicators which are compared with predetermined performance criteria. Relatively sophisticated project economic-evaluation models have been deveIoped since the early 1970s with the help of mainframe computers. Thompson’s work’ in developing the CASPAR model in the early 1970s was one of the major pioneering efforts in this area. The decision on the selection of the best alternative is based on how closely the economic indicators, such as the net present value (NPV), the internal rate of return (IRR), the payback period, and the maximum cash exposure, meet the performance criteria. In systems analysis, the emphasis is on rational thinking, and it makes certain assumptions, i.e. that * clear and definitive objectives can be defined in the early problem-solving or project stage, l alternative means of achieving the objectives can be found. However, of course, in practice, such ass~mptiuns are not always feasible when dealing with soft, ill structured, real-world pr5blems. The hard systems approach of SA finds any ambiguity of objectives, or the lack of firm definitions of systems or project r~uireme~ts~ intolerable, and considers such problem situations to be highly uncertain and ~nmana~eable~ The RAND-type SA approach was not designed to cope with the large number of soft and ill structured problem situations, especially those that deal with human behavioural problems.
butions to systems thinking through their practices in the design, production and construction of complex physical systems to serve predetermined needs and to meet clearly defined objectives. The practice of SE is a natural development of the scientific approach which gives emphasis t5 rational and logical thinking. Its application in dealing with problems of high structural complexity has proved to be effective. Structural complexity is normally characterized by a large number of system components, and intricate interrelati5ns and interactions between these components. The systems concepts have generally found favour with professional engineers and managers in dealing with problems of such structural complexity, SE is characterized by a number of core systems concepts.
Coresystems concepts The core systems concepts have two pairs of ideas’: emergence and hierarchy, and communication and control. The emergence principle states that a system exhibits properties which are meaningfu1 only when they are attributed to the whole, and not to its parts. For instance, the productive and revenue-venerating potential of an offshore oiI-production system is an emergent property of the ~ombiued operations of the drilling, oil and gas processing, delivery, and submarine pipeline or tanker transportation subsystems. Similarly, project management as a purposeful human-activity system exhibits its creative emergent properties as a whole, and derives its purpose and meaning from its organization and component planning and control activities in creating a designed physical entity according to specifications, on time, and within budget. The systems concept emphasises the ordered and structured wholes, which are purposeful synthesis and the integration of their components. System components are invariably structured as a hierarchy with various levels of resolution. Lower-level subsystems may also exhibit their relevant emergent properties. For instance, the drilting, oil and gas processing, and delivery subsystems are separate system wholes which have their own emergent properties that are derived from the functioning of their respective subcomponents. Communication and control have special significance in open human-activity systems. The process of communication through the timely transmission and distribution of information is necessary for the purpose of regulation and control. The overall performance of a system, and sometimes its survival, whether it be a designed physical entity or an organic human-activity system, are dependent on effective communization and certain controlling mechanisms based on timely and accurate feedback information.
Hard systems thinking and project control Systems engineering The development of SE is closely linked with that of SA. Both coincided with the age of heavy engineering in the 1950-60s, when Polaris submarines and other large-scale weapon systems, as well as large complex chemical and process pfants, were being constructed. For the past few decades, professional engineers have made major contri112
In hard systems thinking, organizations are viewed as relentless goal-seeking machines. The emphasis is often on the compliance of the systems procedures. Within the project entity, project activities or tasks and manpower are often organized into multilayered hierarchies, usually in the form of a work-breakdown structure (WSS) and an organizational-breakdown structure International
Journal of Project IManagement
K
(OBS), respectively. The latter is suitably staffed to execute the defined project tasks. The integration of the two structures creates a 2-dimensional responsibilityassignment matrix (RAM). The integration of tasks and human organization gives substance and structure to the project-management system. The need for feedback control in project management gives prominence to the baseline performance measurement and control. The DOD instructions on the performance-measurement system” (PMS) outline a set of Cost/Schedule Control Systems Criteria (CjSCSC) or C-specs for major defence-systems acquisitions. The development and application of PMSs are important evidence of the influence of the hard systems-engineering approach to project management. The SE approach emphasises discipline and compliance to the established policies and procedures. For instance, noncompliance with the CjSCSC requirements may disqualify a wouldbe defence contractor, or cause delay in progress payment by the client4. In this case, the client is the DOD, who also maintains constant surveillance on the contractors’ program-management and control systems to ensure that they continue to meet the client’s reporting and monitoring requirements. The CjSCSC outlines six aspects of systems and control requirements: organizing, planning and budgeting, accounting, variance analysis, revisions, and data access and management. The systems procedures require clear project objectives, firm systems requirements, definitive planning, and budget baselines, and continual performance measurement, reporting, and control against the established objectives and control baselines. The data-access and revisions criteria as stipulated in the C-specs require the contractors to maintain a common database system from which an appropriate level of summary can be obtained. The database is also required to capture and keep track of current and forecast trends and any approved changes against the baselines. The database system is there to ensure effective communication of project information to both the client and the contractor’s senior management. The performance information is used by the client for monitoring and progress-payment purposes, and by the contractor’s senior management for internal tracking and control. The systems approach has been further encouraged and enhanced in recent years, and this is mainly attributed to the widespread application of computerized project-management information systems. In many parts of the world, especially for public-sector construction projects, the clients are now insisting that the would-be contractors must use computerized systems for project scheduhng and control as a prerequisite for bidding for such projectG. In the private sector, the majority of the international construction firms, especially the US firms, have been using the PMS approach based on the C/SCSC Criteria for several decades, drawing initial experience from the defence and aerospace industries.
SOFT SYSTEMS
THINKING
The hard systems thinking discussed means-end paradigm with a strong Vol 11 No 2 May
1993
above represents a emphasis on disci-
T
YE0
pline, goal seeking and end-item accomplishment. Professional project managers tend to accept such a paradigm or ‘world view’, and see the setting of, and commitment to, clear and credible objectives, communication and control mechanisms as one of the most important ingredients in successful project management6. Project managers are more concerned with ‘how’ to perform the tasks, and prefer taking ‘what’ as already having been decided by other authorities. Obviously, they are using an SE mental frame of reference. However, the hard systems approach was found to be inadequate in dealing with the many soft, ill structured, problem situations in the real world, such as those encountered in the conceptual stage of project definition, or those dealing with strategic planning issues, when the definition of clear objectives and formulation of viable alternatives can itself be problematic. The soft and probably ‘messy’ real-world problems often defy precise formulation in the hard sense. For instance, projectmanagement situations outside traditional engineering construction, especially those dealing with the development of large information systems, the formulation of a long-term marketing strategy, the research and development of a new drug, or even the launching of a major organizational restructuring initiative, are potentially soft, ill structured and ambiguous, at least during the initial stage of the project. Checkland and Scholes’, from their more than two decades of research in using the systems approach for solving soft and ill structured problems, have developed and refined a Soft Systems Methodology (SSM). The action research that they used was mainly conducted in the setting of some large corporations and government agencies in the UK. The SSM is described as ‘systemic’, in comparison to the hard ‘systematic’ approach.
Soft systems methodology The SSM is built on the concept of a notional purposive human-activity system (HAS), which is an intellectual construct of an ideal type. The function of such an ideal type, represented as a conceptual model for dealing with a specific problem situation, is to enable comparisons to be made with the perceived reality. The comparison stimulates meaningful and focused debates if the reality deviates considerably from the conceptual model. Figure 1 shows Checkland and Scholes”*’ original 7stage sequence of the SSM. It is suggested that this sequence need not be followed precisely, and, indeed, it can be used out of sequence, as dictated by the problemsolving circumstances and the experience of the problem solver. This SSM model has two parts: the perceived reality and the conceptual model. To start with, there must be at least one person who considers that there is a problem situation that needs to be improved. This is followed by an appreciation and expression of the problem situation in question. The initial stages are the ‘finding out’ stages. The result is a ‘rich picture’ of observed reality or a problem situation which may involve unresolved issues, conflicts, and other problematic and interesting features. Prior to the construction of the conceptual models, so-called root definitions have to be stated. The purpose 113
Systems
thinking and project
management
-
time to reunite
Real world Systems thinking about real world
models of the actwty
Figure
systems
1. 7-stage sequence of SSM
of a root definition is simply to identify the transformation process (T) resulting from a purposeful problemsolving activity, the customers (C) as the potential beneficiaries or victims of such a process, the actors (A) or the problem solvers, the problem owners (0) who can stop the activity, the prevailing environment (E) or constraints, and the relevant world-view or Weltanschauung (W) involved. The expected result of the transformation process can be found in the environment. A root definition is therefore a carefully phrased statement of intention expressed in terms of the six CATWOE elements. The construction of the conceptual model, which can be expressed pictorially, is based on a variety of idea sources, such as empirically observable and historically meaningful experiences, ideas from other intellectual models, and even creative insights.
Systemic conceptual models The ‘conceptual model’ is built directly from the processes, expected outcomes and expressed world views defined in the root definition. It is a conceptual model of the ideal type, and a pure intellectual construct using pure logic, as originally suggested by Checkland’. However, the author of this paper suggests that the conceptual model represents a mental map or mental model which is necessarily bounded and influenced by the aggregate of past experience or the lack of it, or by the richness or poverty of past mental models of the individual managers or problem solvers involved. At the same time, it is inevitable that the conceptual model will be influenced by the current perception and appreciation of the reality of the problem situation concerned. It is not unreasonable to argue that the conceptual model cannot be created in a vacuum and without any prior knowledge or appreciation of the reality of the problem situation. An intellectual model that is based on pure logic, and does not bear any resemblance to reality, is likely to be rejected as irrelevant or purely fantastic. However, of course, one must not forget that the conceptual model cannot be a mere mapping or description of the reality. Otherwise, there will be no problem to solve and no change to make if there is no difference between the conceptual model and the reality. The main purpose of the conceptual model, according to Check114
land, is to help generate meaningful debate among the problem solvers or participants. In the context of project management, professional project managers or planners may reconstruct their conceptual models of how to deal with a complex project situation on the basis of insights from other systems models and relevant concepts. Examples of such projectmanagement related models are the concepts of planning, organizing, communicating, coordinating and feedback control as prescribed in the performancemeasurement systems criteria mentioned above, and concepts of the system-development lifecycle and systemic synergy. Other relevant concepts and theories in psychology, organizational behaviour, power and politics, sociology and economics may also guide and enrich the managers in the construction of adequate and relevant mental models.
Conducting
debates in SSM
The value of using SSM indeed lies in the purposeful and focused debating, learning, and conceptua!ization process initiated by comparing the real-world problems with the idealized or rationalized conceptual model(s). For instance, in relation to problem solving in strategic planning, Mintzberg* suggested that successful planning rarely, if ever, takes place in solitary contemplation; rather, the elements of strategy usually come together in the heat of battle (debate). The accepted model at the end of the purposeful debating and mutual learning process should represent a crystallization of collective wisdom from all those who are involved. In brief, the participants argue, debate and learn their way to a solution which helps to improve the originally conceived and probably messy and even ambiguous problem situation. The SSM can also be used with other methodologies which help in the conduct of the debates and help to stimulate concentrated thinking and learning. For instance, the critical success-factor (CSF) analysis developed for information-technology project planning helps the participants and decision makers to debate and redefine the needs and objectives of the corporation, and to rethink its organizational tasks. The CSF methodology was first used by Rockart’ to identify chief executives’ data needs. It was later further expanded to include different levels of management, and subsequently developed into a strategic-planning tool. At the strategicplanning level, CSF analysis helps the managers to reexamine the company’s mission and goals, express concerns over the ongoing business environment and corporate situation, identify those key factors that are critical to the success of the company in meeting its goals, and find ways to develop effective solutions to overcome any barriers. The CSF method uses interviewing and discussion sessions to encourage participating managers to express concerns or problem situations that may hinder the success of the organization. The CSFs are simply defined as those few important things that a corporation or the managers must do well to ensure a company’s success. The CSF analysis encourages a free and open exchange of views and concerns between the problem owners and International
Journal
of Project
Management
K T YE0
solvers, and even the client, who are the stakeholders as defined in SSM’s CATWOE elements. The CSF debating process helps the participating executives to appreciate better their own corporate environment and any specific problem situations that they face. At the operational level, CSFs are those key issues that help to define whether an organization is achieving its goals and objectives in a changing environment.
SSM FOR PROJECT MANAGEMENT The research into and study of project management as a professional discipline in the past two to three decades has apparently been biased to the hard systems approach, and it has heavily emphasised quantitative techniques in project planning, scheduling and control. Project-network analysis using PERT or CPM, earnedvalue measurement, variance analysis, cost-estimating techniques, risk analysis, Monte Carlo simulation, sensitivity analysis, cost modelling, and, lately, expert systems are almost synonymous with ‘modern’ project-management approaches and techniques”. However, the problem of consistent and often excessive cost overruns of 4%500% over the initial estimates and frequent programme slippage are common phenomena in the management of major projects”. One of the most fundamental causes of the problem is change. There are changes in design concepts, engineering specifications, scope of work, and technologies, and changes in the macroeconomic and political environment. There are also other problems relating to the competence of management personnel, human perception and judgement, and differences in culture and value systems. To be systematic is to do things correctly or efficiently with clear objective(s) in mind, However, firm and clear objectives and courses of action are not always feasible, especially when dealing with large projects that utilize new and unfamiliar technology. There is also the tough question of whether the right things are being done in the first place when working under pressure in a rapidly changing project environment. In strategic decision making, or in preproject planning, it does pay to take a little longer to concentrate and think through all the related issues from different perspectives to create the rich picture of the reality, and subsequently to construct an enriched mental model that will lead to satisfactory problem solving. This process can be achieved by resorting to collective wisdom, and by paying attention to the soft, ill structured and ambiguous problems and issues. This is adopting a soft systemic thinking mentality.
More about mental models The concept of mental models can be further comprehended using Mintzberg?? idea, as follows. ‘Managers, like everyone else, use their information to build models of their world, which are implicit synthesized apprehensions of how their organisations and environments function. Then, whenever an action is contemplated, the manager can simulate the outcome using his implicit model.’ The value of mental models lies in the provision of a mental frame of reference to diagnose and structure perceived real-world problem situations. For any mental Vol 11 No 2 May 1993
model to be useful, it must be adequate and relevant. The characteristics of the mental models are deemed to influence the problem-solving behaviours. The richness or poverty of a mental model determines the scope of the relevant solution space in a problematic project situation. To develop further the concept of mental models derived from soft systemic thinking, their relevance in tackling project situations with great uncertainty will be explored. The project scenario is similar to those faced during the early stage of the Channel Tunnel project and the recent project proposal to dam the three gorges of the Yangtze River in China, which were plagued with problems of great uncertainty. Examples of similar project scenarios, although with a lesser degree of uncertainty, are those faced during the feasibility study of a mass rapid-transit system to solve chronic traffic-congestion problems in a metropolis, or the design of a new aircraft using advanced technology. During the formative stage of such projects, it is likely that the decision makers or problem solvers in the preproject planning phase may not have a good grasp of the problem situation. The problem situation can be considered as being fuzzy and ill defined. This may imply, on the part of the decision makers, an inability to decide clearly on the project objectives, scope and specific requirements. They may have difficulty in defining the relevant problem variables and task involved, and even in determining what constitutes a desired and achievable outcome. They may not have a clear image of the end stage or the end-item accomplishment. Using the SSM terminology, this is to say that there is difficulty in determining the root definitions of relevant purposeful human-activity systems and their constituent CATWOE elements. In the above project scenario, the decision makers or problem solvers do not yet possess the necessary mental models that are adequate for problem framing and structuring. With a lack of adequate and relevant mental models, they will not be able to read the project situation with any degree of confidence. They may have to struggle to start the problem-solving process, and it may be haphazard.
Some systemic insights The main cause of the above problem situation is that of ambiguity. The problem of ambiguity is due to the lack of knowledge, prior experience, relevant information, or, worst of all, sheer ignorance. There may be a problem of discontinuity, in that conventional methods or existing technologies are found to be inadequate or unsuitable in the new situation. The degree of ambiguity and uncertainty is not exogenous. It is relative to the capacity and richness of the collective mental models of the group of decision makers or problem solvers. The degree of uncertainty and perceived ambiguity can be aggravated owing to the incompetence of the project manager and his/her team. Human politics, not at all surprisingly, may also contribute to uncertainty. This can be caused by confusion due to ignorance displayed in the politicking process, and by contradictions due to paradoxes and irreconcilable conflicts of interests. Ambiguity may arise owing to the presence of more than one 115
Systems t~l~nkingand project rn~~~ge~~~ent - time to r~un~t~ dominating view which attaches different meanings to, and reaches different interpretations of, issues or choices of criteria. Checkland” has indeed suggested that organizations should not be treated purely as ‘goal-seeking machines’, but as having discourses, cultures, political interplays, tribes, quasifamilies, and a network of tasks and communications. Both hard and soft systems methodologies are complimentary and inseparable, and both are needed to deal with problems of complexity and ambiguity in human situations. The complexity is not just manifested in terms of the problems of tasks or organizational structures being large and intricate, but also in terms of other social, political and cultural biases, preconceptions, and the idiosyncrasies of the human actors. In viewing project management as a human-activity system, there is a problem of perception. Perception is one’s view of things and events. Individuals are quite capable of attaching different meanings to, and reaching different interpretations of, the same issue. People view the world through coloured lenses according to their declared or undeclared world views or value systems. The power of perception is vividly demonstrated in ‘the beauty and the witch’ exercisei4. In this exercise in perception, two groups of people can see the same picture, and disagree, and yet both are right, depending on their perspectives or mental maps. One group sees a beautiful young woman, while the other group sees an ugly old witch. Both groups have earlier been given separately well defined pictures of a beauty and a witch. Their mental maps have been conditioned. There are useful lessons that a professional project manager can derive from such psychological exercises. Most project managers are trained in technical fields, and many of them are proud professional engineers who tend to be task-oriented. They are mainly motivated by end-item accomplishment, i.e. when the projects are successfully commissioned and handed over. These tough-minded task managers can usually be found in the heavy-engineering and construction industries.
Change, learning and managemeut competence In the new age, change is inevitable, as people are less likely to be satisfied with their perceived reality. There is relentless competition, on one’s doorstep and elsewhere. The new business environment is characterized by a high rate of change and a high level of connectivity. Business enterprises as purposive human-activity systems, using the SSM terminology, have to be highly dynamic and organic as a living organism which has the capacity to learn and respond to changing circumstances and demands. The capacity and willingness to learn continuously, and the development of core competences, will be the important personal qualities of project managers in the future. Intellectually, their knowledge will be more broadly based, and they will have interests in other nontechnical fields. In systemic terms, they will develop a repertoire of multidimensional mental models, and continuously enrich them through purposive training and new experiences. They will use such extended mental capacities to create larger solution spaces to deal with problems of higher complexity and ambiguity, under varying circumstances. They will learn new ways of framing and solving problems, and continue to reconstruct their current mental frame of reference. They will have the courage to challenge the existing norms and conventional wisdoms. Psychologically, they will develop the capacity and willingness to lead, a sense of commitment, and a broad behaviour style with different levels of corporate management, project-team members, customers, contractors and suppliers. There will be few prospects for an introverted narrow specialist in project leadership. Learning at the organizational level is also vitally important. A corporate culture and a committed leadership that encourage learning and the sharing of knowledge and experience are prerequisites for a learning organization. Organizational learning is essential to both personal and corporate performance. Ari de Geusi6 believes that the ability to learn faster than one’s competitors may be the only sustainable competitive advantage.
Beyond engineering construction Project management as a professional discipline is undergoing radical change. There are now many new fields for the practice of the science and art of project management which go beyond traditional heavy-engineering construction. Barnesi has discussed the application of project management to innovations and business success. He quotes a director of a UK high-technology company who views a corporation as a living organism. The living organism has to change and adapt as it goes along, or it dies. This is not quite hard systems thinking. An SE approach which demands clear and credible objectives and definitive tasks, as discussed earlier, is not likely always to be feasible in an innovation-oriented high-technology enterprise. The setting of clear objectives and the formulation of definitive alternatives from the outset are a luxury. Even an initially clear objective is also subject to change under rapidly changing circumstances. 116
CONCLUSIONS The title of this paper has been deliberately chosen in response to an earlier paper by Checkland’ in which he asks whether it is time to unite information systems and systems thinking. The author of this paper considers the work on SSM as a complement to traditional systems thinking to be important and relevant to the field of project management. The secret of success in project management, as in any other field of management, is learning, especially when dealing with soft, ill structured and initially ambiguous problem situations. The learning has to be continual, purposeful and focused. The learning process that is stimulating and purposeful brings futfilment and meaning to those who are involved, in the course of helping to contribute to the overali. objectives. The practice of project management has its origin in systems analysis and systems engineering, and it is time International
Journal
of Project
Management
K T YE0
to reunite it with the extended body of knowledge in systems thinking. The extended systems thinking incorporates the traditional systems approach, soft systems thinking, and other relevant systems methodologies.
REFERENCES
4
5
6 7 8 9 10
11
Checkland, P B Systems Thinking, Systems Practice John Wiley, UK (1981) Thompson, P Cons~r~ciion Economics and Organisafion McGraw-HiIl, UK (1981) Perfor~~~ance ~easurerne~~~ Sysrem ,for Selecred Ac~~isitjoFzs US Department of Defense, USA (1977) Fleming, Q W Put Earned Value (CjSCSC) Into Your Management Control System (2nd Ed.) Humphreys & Associates, Laguna Hills, USA (1983) Yeo, K T ‘Implementing a successful IT strategy for contracting firms’ Int. J. Project Manage. Vo19 No 1 (1991) Gabriel, E ‘Teamworkfact and fiction’ Int. J. Projett Manage. Vol 9 No 4 (1991) Checkland, P and &holes, J Sofl Spew ~efhod” ology in Action John Wiley, UK (1990) Mintz~rg, H Mintzberg on ~anageFne?z~ Free Press, USA (1989) Rockart, J F ‘Chief executives define their own data needs’ Harvard Bus. Rev. (Mar-Apr 1979) Yeo, K T ‘Forging new project value chain-paradigm shift’ ASCE J. Manage. Eng. Vo17 No 2 (199 I) pp 203-212 Morris, P W G and Hough, G H The Anatomy qf
Vol 11 No 2 May
1993
major Projects John Wiley, USA (1987) 12 Mintzberg, H ‘Planning on the left side and managing on the right’ Harvard Bus. Rev. Vol 54 No 4 (1976) pp 49-58 systems and systems 13 Checkland, P B ‘Information thinking: time to unite?’ Znt. J. Zec Manage. Vol 8 (1988) pp 239-248 i-i Covey, S R 7 Habits of Highly Effective People Simon & Schuster, USA (1989) - why project management 15 Barnes, M ‘Innovation is essential to successful businesses’ Int. J. Project ~unage. VoI 9 No 4 (199 1) 16 de Geus, A ‘Planning as learning’ Harvard Bus. Rev. (Mar-Apr 1988) pp 70-74 Khim-Teck Yea is an associafe professor at the School of Mechanical and Production Engineering, Nanyang Technological Uniuersiry, Sagapore. His currenf interests are in fhe management qf technology, svsfems thinking andpracfice, information systems, and project mattagemeni in newjieields.He received a BEi~g,~u~l fhe Uniz>ersityof Singapore, an MSe and a PhD from fhe Uf~il~ersit~qf Manchester fnstiiufe of Scienceand Technology, UK, and an MBA from Sfratlrclvde Unit)ersif_v. UK. He gained h>s indusfrial experience ,frorn fhe utilities, offshore oil and gas, and aerospace indusfries. He worked,fbr Foster Wheeler, BNOC and Brifoil during 1975-83, and was attached fo Grumman Aerospace in 198748. He has been acfice in consulfing in project-management and sysfems-related work ,for major corporations in Singapore and Chirra.
117