research conference presentation in project management

1. Emergent?

2. Structure becomes complex
when it has a large number
of parts, functions and
relations and becomes more
complex when these
elements increase
Do you agree?

3. Complex, not complicated
exploring emergent project structure
Maria Kapsali and Tomas Blomquist
Umeå School of Business and Economics

4. Complicated systems
Complex systems
Structure is predetermined,
relatively fixed and decomposable
Structure is partially determined and
partially self-organized
Structure is determined by the
number, functions and relations of
parts and becomes complex when
these elements increase
Structure emerges from the local
activities of a lower number of
agents who follow simple rules
Structural rules impose order on the
project parts
Few simple rules direct action,
control emerges from feedback in
activities
An airplane
A snowflake

5. Mistaken complicated with
complex
Complicated
•
The key presumption is that the
structure of a complicated system is
predetermined, relatively fixed and
decomposable
•
Can identify all its parts and describe
the whole system
•
Structure becomes more complicated
by the number, function and relations
of components and increases when
these elements increase
•
Structure imposes order on the parts
by the means of many detailed action
rules monitoring the implementation of
the design
Complex
•
Parts cannot be analysed and
described because they transform,
emerge and disappear over time
•
A relatively lower number of parts
which follow simple rules directing
action
•
Structure emerges from the local
activities of the parts and the feedback
in activities rather than control
practices

6. Our intention
To examine how structure emerges from co-creation practices
in a complex project
The contribution
•
will straighten some of our misconceptions about complexity
theoretical
•
will help us understand how structure emerges from activities
theoretical
•
an exploratory study into how we can investigate complexity in
organizational settings methodological
•
how organization manage complexity by accepting emerging
structures practical

7. How?
The method
•
Emergence comes from routines and it
is very difficult to measure activity and
structural combinations using standard
stats
•
Use Qualitative Comparative Analysis
that is configurational analysis
•
and process mapping
A unique setting
•
An unconventional project that was
designed from the start to allow
activities to emerge rather than plan
for them
•
Umeå European Capital of Culture
2014

9. The study: a unique experiment
•
The Umeå European Capital of Culture 2014 project has No detailed
prescheduled activity or time plan
•
Embed co-creation practices into the organization of the project
•
The individuals who ‘produce’ the activities are also the ‘consumers’: the
activities are co-created by the citizens themselves, individuals and
organizations, who are accommodated into a structure of interaction
platforms
•
Our purpose: examine its emerging structure by its activities
•
Data: Database of 265 activities, 71 hours of observations and interviews
with political committee and project management team (Maj 2013)

10. Organization of Umeå2014
•
The project has two levels of hierarchy
•
No standard operating procedures but a set of criteria for selecting and
evaluating activities
•
None of these criteria is of a budgetary, scheduling or operational nature.
They are rather used to assess the nature and quality of the activities and
if they are suitable to serve the implementation of the project goals
•
3 types of activities: seed, co-funded and independent
–
Every ’activity’ could be seen as a project – since it is about the realization of a
singular cultural event e.g. an opera production

11. The method
Qualitative Comparative Analysis:
configurational set-theoretic analysis
of multiple variables
Therefore we need to find a method that will
a)
investigate the project as a system with two levels (level of the
formulation of local activity and level of management activity) and
b)
explain the causal complexity between these two levels that creates
the project structure
In order to investigate both levels of analysis,
1.
first we investigate patterns in bottom-up activity
2.
second we analyse management processes and
3.
third we analyse patterns in structural properties (Raymond et al.,
1997) linked to the patterns in bottom-up and management activity
34 interviews/observations, project
documents and database of 265 activities,
project protocols (minutes) from
committee meetings

12. The metrics: Activity criteria
The criteria used to group activities and set by the project team
according to the strategic goals of the political committee
Empowerment goals
Grow Citizens
Culture/sports sector
International relations
Region/Trade and industry
Urban growth
Horizontal goals
European
Sustainability
Equality
Co-creation
Diversity
Innovative
Accessibility

13. The metrics: Structural properties
Structural
properties
Task or role
specialization
Vertical
differentiation
Definition of property
Variables
The subdivision of activities
within organizations on the
basis of positions
1.
2.
Activity segmented on the
basis of ranks, the number of
hierarchical levels
1.
2.
Measures
Role specificity
Number of titles
Functional diversification (an
≥5
expansion in the range of activities for
≤5
each role)
=0
Number of levels in the longest line
No of levels
Average number of levels
≥3
QCA
Values
1
0.5
0
1
Activity segmented on the
1.
basis of subunits, the number 2.
of subdivisions or specialities 3.
Decentralization The distribution of authority
for making decisions
4.
5.
Standardization
Formalization
Coverage and application of
operating procedures, rules
and regulations uniformly
1.
2.
3.
Artistic-creative
Business-Managerial-Marketing
Political
Delegation
Delegation
Delegation
activities
Delegation
Delegation
1.
2.
Activity specificity (decomposition)
Surveillance enforcement
rules, procedures, regulations 1.
and communications are
2.
written and filed
personnel
budget
introduction/termination
over scheduling
over resources
Rule formalization
Rule – Procedures
0.5
=0
Horizontal
differentiation
≤3
0
No of functions
≥5
1
≤5
0.5
=0
Level of decision
0
Political panel
1
Project group
0.5
Activity owner
0
Rules per activity
≥5
≤5
=0
formalization
Highly formal
1
0.5
0
1
Medium
0.5
Informal
0

14. Lit review
What we know and what we don’t

15. Previous studies say that
•
Structure is often not really a choice
–
Driven by the parent organization, client expectations or product specifications
- usually a matrix
–
Create and recreate project structures around the needs of each product and
customer
•
Project planning and monitoring methods are used to structure activities
•
Emergent activities create deviations from plans that is why they have to
be controlled and contained
•
Structural complexity stems from the scale or scope of interconnected
tasks and it is affected by goal uncertainty and stakeholder interaction

16. What we don’t know
1. Problematic definition about what is a complex project due to the
misdirection towards complicated projects
2. The essential heuristics within action that create emergent structures understand the simple rules of emergent activities - the project’s causal
complexity
3. Weaknesses in the studies conducted in project complexity so far relate to
the epistemological transposition of complexity paradigms in project
management systems models that lead to a hybridization of incompatible
ideas
– emergent social processes cannot be accurately measured because of
their fluidity and informality and therefore they have not been directly
correlated to structural properties
– lack of ‘objective’ variables
– confused with self-organization
– difficulty of obtaining adequately large data sets of such nature in social
science
– factors in human activities are more diverse and more inconsistent

17. Findings
New emergent configurations of project
activities and the shaping of structural
properties

18. The process
Collate
Media
Database
Marketing
Seed
track 1
Activity
owner
Dialogue
Project
Office
Sort
Evaluate
Decide
to fund
Advice
and
provide
Feedback
Activity
owner
Collate
Activity
owner
ck
Project
Office
Decide to
apply for cofunding/decide
to include in
final program
2
Advice
to
include
ac
Tr
Independent
track 3
Sum
Apply
through
website
Tr
a
Dialogue
Check
k1
Trac
Co-funded
track 2
Activity
owner
report
Evaluate
Feedback
Monitor
through
dialogue
Advice
and
provide
Activity
owner
reports
Political committee
k3
Check
Evaluate
Decide
to
include
Feedback
Advice
and
provide
Activity
owner
reports
Project Office
Schedulling the
program
Media

19. Emergent activities grouped into clusters
according to the activity criteria
Project Office
Schedulling the
program
medborgare*kulturidrottsse*nytankande
medborgare*kulturidrottsse*europe
isk*hallbarhet
3
9
2
4
1
10
medskapande
11
mangfald
5
6
8
medborgare*medskapande
7
medborgare*kulturidrottsse
*nytankande*medskapande
*mangfald
17
medborgare*medska
pande
12
medborgare*hallba
rhet*medskapande
13
16
15
The grape-like structure of project activities,
emerging from the utilization of quality criteria
for selection and assessment
14
hallbarhet
mangfald

20. Patterns in structural properties
artistic-creative*~political*business
consistency coverage
1
0.5
delegation over*delegation over
1
1.000000
combined
0.5
0.994987
rules and procedures*surveillance
enforcement
rules and procedures
surveillance enforcement
1
0.666667
0.812404
1
1
0.500000
0.5
0.703562
0.703562
The most significant structural measures and their combinations
horizontal
differentiation*decentralization
vertical
differentiation*decentralization
horizontal differentiation
consistency coverage
1
0.5
combined
0.703562
1
0.500000
0.703562
1
0.500000
0.703562
Three structural variables are equally significant

21. The emergent structure
Independent
Role specialization
1
Formalization
0.5
Vertical
differentiation
All
0
Horizontal
differentiation
Standardization
Role specialization
1
Decentralization
Co-funded
Formalization
0.5
Role specialization
1
Formalization
0.5
Vertical
differentiation
Vertical differentiation
0
0
Horizontal
differentiation
Standardization
Horizontal
differentiation
Standardization
Decentralization
Decentralization
Seed funded
Role specialization
1
Formalization
0.5
Vertical
differentiation
0
Horizontal
differentiation
Standardization
Decentralization

22. Conclusions
Role specialization
Formalization
Vertical differentiation
Horizontal
differentiation
Standardization
Decentralization
The structure of a
snowflake emerges
via rules
The project structure
of Umeå 2014
emerges via a few
heuristic rules
(activity criteria)

23. Conclusions
Initial intentions
Contributions
Straighten misconceptions
about complex and complicated
Understand how structure can emerge, not
only be designed theoretical
Understand how structure
emerges from activities
Activities and processes affect the
formations of structural properties
theoretical
Exploratory study into how we
can investigate complexity in
project settings
Tested the use of Qualitative Comparative
Analysis methodological
How projects manage
complexity by accepting
emerging structures
•
Questions the traditional perceptions of
power and authority that project teams
are used to
•
Co-creation practices change the
traditional way of planning and control
• QCA helps to analyze project portfolios
practical

24. Conclusion:
How is emergent structure shaped by
local activities?
By two things: a set of simple heuristic rules and standardized but simple processes
•
Local activities rely on heuristics (such as the activity criteria in this case). Heuristic
simple rules direct towards action, they are prominent in both the processes of
informal feedback and in formal control and are not ‘objective’ measurement.
–
Simple rules guide local action and incentivize it to form into groups that eventually will
determine which managerial activities and structural properties are effective.
•
Control used as critical minimum specifications is but a small part of ‘calibrating’ the
activities towards the right direction and not about punishing through imposing
penalties for lack of conforming.
•
Therefore the emergent structure has minimum levels of control and activity planning
and is partially a product of self-organization by muddling through. Not completely
organic: it has strong elements of vertical differentiation, it is not completely flat
and decentralization is not used in a random manner but rather in pre-specified
points in the process and it is always followed by consultation.
•
A semi-organic structure where top down design elements such as work
specialization, formalization, standardization, decentralization and differentiation are
changed according to the structural configuration of activities

25. Conclusion
•
Future research should focus on emergence to analyse structures in complex projects
• A complex project is a social ‘organism’, which despite of its small or large size
and number of relations, its behaviour is emergent from the interplay of diverse
local processes and can only partially be governed through a small set of
identifiable simple rules which direct its emergent behaviour. It is imperative in
such a system not to rely on mapping all the stakeholders and all the
interactions; it is rather more important to understand the simple rules of
emergent activities - the project’s causal complexity. This is the only way we
can identify the actual boundary demarcations in a complex project.
Any Questions?