Successfully reported this slideshow.

Recent evolution and future trend of project management - Prof. Soderlund


Published on

Presentazione del prof. Jonas Soderlund al seminario Recent evolution and future trend of project management

Published in: Education, Business, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

Recent evolution and future trend of project management - Prof. Soderlund

  1. 1. The Future of Project Management Jonas Söderlund
  2. 2. • Professor, BI Norwegian Business School • Professor, KITE, Linköping University • Educated: Harvard Business School, MIT, and LiU • Visiting professor/scholar: Cranfield School of Management, Ecole Polytechnique, MIT • Core faculty/director: Advanced Project Management, PMEX Executive MBA, Master of Management • Research on: I: P-form organizations and capabilities II: Human Resource Management in Project-based Organizations III: Project management, knowledge integration and time • Research with: Astra Zeneca, Saab, Volvo Cars, Volvo Aero, Tetra Pak, ABB, Skanska, Scania, and Ericsson. Jonas Söderlund
  3. 3. Trends and tendencies 3
  4. 4. Disintegrating forces – necessary integration Science and technology Speed Specialization Location Globalization Emerging economies Market influences Rethinking Project Management? Market transformation Deregulation Complex solutions 4
  5. 5. • Cross-national. How is project management affected by the increasing number of international projects? How is project management affected by the increasing requirements on cross-national cooperation and coordination? • Cross-company. How is project management affected by the increasing need for cooperation and coordination across firms? • Cross-disciplinary. How is project management affected by the increasing requirements on knowledge integration, coordination across disciplinary boundaries and knowledge bases?
  6. 6. Three challenges 6
  7. 7. Challenges • The international challenge:  International mergers, international R&D, international projects • The organizational challenge:  Outsourcing, offshoring, networks, cooperation across organizational boundaries • The technological challenge:  Complex systems and technologies, coordination across disciplinary boundaries, knowledge integration requirements 7
  8. 8. The international challenge
  9. 9. The international challenge • International mergers • International R&D • International projects • International mega projects 9
  10. 10. Case: Scandinavia • The export of Scandinavian countries has continued to increase. Today export accounts for more than 50 percent of GDP. • The share of foreign owned R&D is more than 40 percent, equally the share of foreign R&D by Scandinavian firms is steadily increasing. • The number of people employed by foreign companies is on the rise. In some sectors the rate of change has been 300 percent during the last two decades. • Number and importance of international mega projects are increasing. More local large-scale projects are carried out by international companies. 10
  11. 11. 11
  12. 12. 12
  13. 13. 13
  14. 14. The organizational challenge
  15. 15. The organizational challenge • Outsourcing and offshoring • Open innovation and open projects • Network-based organizations 15
  16. 16. Organizational fragmentation • R&D carried out by Indian companies for Western companies have increased by 300 percent in the last 10 years. • Co-developed projects in the pharmaceutical industry are more than 25 percent faster than in-house projects. • Infrastructure projects in 2010 involved five times as many sub-contractors as in 1990. • Project alliances and innovative contracting are used to reduce cost and lead-times.
  17. 17. The technological challenge
  18. 18. The technological challenge • Technological complexification • Knowledge specialization • Clockspeed competition 18
  19. 19. Historical requirements Contemporary requirements Low technical complexity of vessels High technical complexity of vessels Low interdependence (subcontractors only supplying components) High interdependence (subcontractors installing components on board) Few partners involved in a project Many partners involved in a project Low time pressure, long product development lead-times High time pressure, short product development lead-times High profit margin Low profit margin 20
  20. 20. 21
  21. 21. 22
  22. 22. Supporting observations • The increasing clockspeeds in our economy are forcing firms to launch products more frequently. • As a result, a larger fraction of the total work in the firm is project work. In effect, then, the business manager becomes a project manager or an overseer of project managers. The premium paid for project management skills and tools is thus likely to increase. • Those faster clockspeeds are also forcing companies to compress their product development cycles. • A research study at Stanford University found that industry sectors where the product clockspeed was higher tend also to have faster organizational clockspeeds. (Fine, 1998, Clockspeed: Winning Industry Control in the Age of Temporary Advantage, MIT Press) 23
  23. 23. The nature and design of project structures
  24. 24. Approach Traditional project management Adaptive project management Project goal Getting the job done on time, on budget, and within requirements Getting business results, meeting multiple criteria Project plan A collection of activities that are executed as planned to meet the triple constraint An organization and a process to achieve the expected goals and business results Planning Plan once at project initiation Plan at outset and re-plan when needed Managerial approach Rigid, focused on initial plan Flexible, changing, adaptive Project work Predictable, certain, linear, simple Unpredictable, uncertain, nonlinear, complex Environment effect Minimal, detached after the project is launched Affects the project throughout its execution Project control Identify deviations from plan, and put things back on track Identify changes in the environment, and adjust the plans accordingly Distinction All projects are the same Projects differ Management style One size fits all Adaptive approach: one size does not fit all 25
  25. 25. Two key variables Interdependence Project Structure Line Structure Knowledge Development 26
  26. 26. Development process 1. Complete modules, Phased, Hand-over, PM as partitioning and planning, “Separated project organization” n phases, across b-systems, Integrated b-system teams, IT ctrical/Mechanical, PM as nd-over control and WBS, hased project organization” Separated/ Sequential Iterative/ Overlapping Separated/ Partitioned 3. Across phases, Complete Sub-systems modules, Overlapping/iterative Manufacturing-Product design PM as partitioning, managing Integrated teams, Integrated “Modularized project organization” Across phases, across systems anufacturing-product design/ ectrical-mechanical engineering M as integration, oupled project organization” 27 (cf. Söderlund, 2005)
  27. 27. The nature and dynamics of project processes
  28. 28. The Logic of Value Creation in Projects Use of project outcomes Client organization Deliveries Project Start Stop
  29. 29. A process model Magnitude Contextual uncertainty Operational uncertainty Time 32
  30. 30. Pacing – out-of-phase
  31. 31. A real process model Magnitude Time 34
  32. 32. The nature and range of project success
  33. 33. Project Success Efficiency •Meeting schedule •Meeting budget •Meeting requirements and specifications •Other efficiencies Impact on customer •Customer satisfaction and loyalty •Benefit to customer •Extent of use •Brand name recognition Impact on team •Team satisfaction •Skill development •Team member growth •Team member retention •No burnout Business and direct success •ROI, ROE •Sales •Profits •Market share •Cash flow •Service quality Preparation for future •New technology •New market •New product line •New core competency •New organizational capability
  34. 34. Success dimensions Project Success Preparation for future Business and direct success Impact on team Impact on customer Efficiency Short Medium Long Time frame
  35. 35. PSO 38 38 38
  36. 36. Objectives Control Evaluation People System Organization 39
  37. 37. Readings and references
  38. 38. • • • • • • • • • • Berggren, C., L. Bengtsson, A. Bergek, M. Hobday & J. Söderlund (2011) (Eds.): Knowledge integration and innovation: critical challenges facing technology-based firms, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Berggren, C., J. Söderlund & C. Anderson (2001): Clients, contractors, and consultants: the consequences of organizational fragmentation in contemporary project environments, Project Management Journal. Vol. 32, No. 3:39-48. Bredin, K. & J. Söderlund (2011): Human Resource Management in Project-based Organizations: The HR Quadriad Framework, Basingstoke: Palgrave. Dahlgren, J. & J. Söderlund (2001): Managing inter-firm projects: on pacing and matching hierarchies, International Business Review, Vol. 10: 305-322. Morris, P., J. Pinto & J. Söderlund (2011) (Eds.): Oxford Handbook of Project Management, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Söderlund, J. & N. Andersson (1998): A framework for analyzing project dyads: the case of discontinuity, uncertainty and trust, in R. A. Lundin & C. Midler (Eds.), Projects as arenas for renewal and learning processes, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Söderlund, J. & F. Tell (2009): The P-Form organization and the dynamics of project competence: Project epochs in Asea/ABB, 1950-2000, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 27: 101-112. Söderlund, J., A. Vaagaasaar & E. S. Andersen (2008): Relating, reflecting and routinizing: developing project competence in cooperation with others, International Journal of Project Management. Vol. 26, No. 5: 517-526. Söderlund, J. (2010): Knowledge entrainment and project management: the case of large-scale transformation projects, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 28, No. 2: 130-141. Söderlund, J. (2005): Projektledning och projektkompetens: perspektiv på konkurrenskraft, Malmö: Liber. (“Project management and project competence: Perspectives on competitiveness”). (351 p)