Managerial complexity in project based operation - Essay Example

?MANAGERIAL COMPLEXITY IN PROJECT BASED OPERATION Overview The decision to undertake any meaningful project comes with a lot of challenging complexities that the project manger has to overcome to achieve success. Attempts to get a single concise definition for the term managerial complexity have virtually failed because there are no specific tools to measure levels of complexity of individual project. The Rational Rhapsody observes that “Levels of complexity can be measured in all kinds of ways, including the number of team members or components, complexity of the design, integration of legacy code, type of content management used, and geographical distribution of the team.” The complexity of projects varies in demand and input. However, an attempt to give a concise measure of complexity has been done by Carver et al (2008). In doing this, Kailash (2008) observes that the writers “present a qualitative empirical model which captures both structural (static) and dynamic elements of  managerial complexity in projects.” The major themes introduced in the model are structural complexity and dynamic complexity. Structural complexity The Carvers model tries to make the understanding of the structural complexity of project management look easier by introducing a model that serves as the benchmark for determining the complexity of the structure of every project. In determining the structural complexity of a project, the writers put forth five (5) major dimensions from which the structural complexity of a project would be measured. The five dimensions, Mission, Organisation, Delivery, Stakeholders and Team. These are dimensions that help in determining the structural complexity of managing a project. Since the model helps in determining the structural complexity of a project, it is referred to as structural complexity model. To make it easier to remember the dimensions upon which the structural complexity is determined, an acronym, MODeST was developed to represent the first letter of each of the dimensions and the first two letters of ‘delivery’ in the dimension. The model represents an empirical basis for measuring the complexity of projects globally. This is because typical challenges faced by complexity in project and programme environments in the management of all major projects around the world can be measured on the basis the dimensions of MODeST. Project managers are putting behind traditional project management strategies to get adapted to the realities of the structural complexity as proposed by Carvers et al (2008). “Until now, project management has lagged behind other corporate processes in its quest for simplicity while global entities have embraced complexity, even chaos” (Management Concepts, 2011). A typical real life example can be given with the setting up of an iPhone industry. With the establishment of an iPhone industry as a case study, such an industry follows the structure of MODeST as discussed above. To with, the company starts with a mission, starting their aims and objectives for venturing into business. These aims and objectives lays bare their vision and what they want to get out of the establishment of the business. As part of their mission, there is scale of operation which includes long timescale. Stating a mission would of course not be complete or valid without stating what possible uncertainties and constraints are there to be face. Some of these constraints include legal acquisition of licence. Such as business are would also put an organisational structure in place. As part of their organisation, the company would specify time frame of operation, trade or market space, and possible restructuring that would have to take place in the company either immediately or in the nearest future. Next, the industry will consider their delivery mode after production starts. To do this, they get an administration and management in place to take care of all duties that has to do with major decision making. There would also be a mapping strategy to determine the project process, methodology for delivery and finally resources needed to make delivery possible. Furthermore, the company would state its stakeholder and find out if the stakeholders have all that it takes to support the business to succeed. In today’s competitive technological advancement era, an iPhone company would have to consider questions such as “do stakeholder groups interfere with the project? Do stakeholders have sufficient time for the project? Do they respond to project needs in a timely manner? Do stakeholders have conflicting priorities?” (Kailash, 2008). Finally, the company would constitute its team to consist of staff, managers, marketers and other people to get the company running. There is no denying fact that following the structure is complicated and challenging. However, there is evidence that the complexity is more fruitful than embarking on the traditional system of project management as testified by Management Concept (2011). Researchers have identified range of typical challenges faced by complexity in project and programme environments such as the case study used above, though the company may be assured of productivity in the long run, the possibility of facing serious challenges cannot be ruled out. Kathleen (2011) observes that the kind of challenge to be faced in project management and in the application of complexity depends on the kind of project one is undertaking. She identifies project types such as once with long duration; those that are large, dispersed, culturally diverse; innovative urgent projects; projects that may have political implication; ambiguous projects and poorly understood, volatile projects. But whatever the nature of the project is, there are ways of handling the challenges. Kathleen (2011) observes that “in the case of complex projects, leadership is the critical component that can make the difference”. The competence of a project manager to handle complexity is an important fact in determining success. Thought the MODeST model may contain only five components, each of the components comes with different responsibilities and attachments. It therefore needs a mission oriented leader to unearth all the aspects of the model to ensure success. As a mark of a good leader, Kathleen advises leaders to “adopt the appropriate project cycle and PM practices for the situation.” This is to explain that though the model may be comprehensive, it the project manager should not be enslaved by it. There should be possible adjustments to fit every project situation. The project cycle to be used for each project must fit perfectly in terms of goals, resources, and readiness to handle risk. Dynamic Complexity The Carvers model makes room for change and flexible manipulation of the structural complexity model. Dynamic complexity explains the nature of the components of the model that makes it possible for project managers to have their own input to the model. Referring to the components of the model, which is otherwise known as elements of the model, Kailash (2008) notes that “these structural elements can change in time and also interact with each other, so the model is also capable of describing dynamic complexity in projects.” Using the scenario of the establishment of an iPhone company, the relationship or duties of stakeholders is not static but change with time. This makes stakeholders in the model dynamic and not static. Kailash observes from Carvers et al (2008) that “from an organisational theory perspective, a project can be seen as being constituted from the entire set of relationships it has with itself and with its stakeholders.” The dynamic complexity in some sense may be seen as adding to the change of the model in the sense that some changes that occur during project management are so sudden and may change the entire mission or other components of the model. Dynamic complexity may also be seen as an advantage for project managers to adjust structures to fit their needs as and when they change. The debate as to whether dynamic complexity is advantageous or disadvantageous rests with leadership as Kathleen suggests. As Dan Rossner, PA Consulting Group observes, it is important for project managers to know of the Carvers Model that “Individual requirements are rarely complex in themselves; it is the relationships and interdependencies between them that result in complexity—so it is these that need to be spotted and managed.” (Kathleen, 2011). REFERENCES Carver et al. 2008, Managerial Complexity in Project- Based Operations: A Grounded Model and Its Implications for Practice. Project Management Journal, Project Management Institute, Volume 39, Supplementary, 2008. Kailash A. 2008, The Model of Project Complexity, accessed 19 February, 2011 Kathleen B.H. 2011, Applying Complexity Thinking to Manage Project Complexity Dimensions, accessed 19 February 2011 Management Concepts, 2011, Introducing The Project Complexity Model: A New Approach To Diagnosing And Managing Projects, accessed 17 February 2011 Rational Rhapsody, 2009, Determining Project Complexity, accessed 18 February 2011, Read More