Chris Ivory

Can Project Management Learn Anything from Studies of Failure in Complex Systems

Studies of failure in complex technology systems point to the role of non-linear interactions, “emergence,” conflicting objectives, overly centralized management and “multi-nodality” in precipitating this failure. At the same time, studies of technology failure and safety in high-reliability organizations point to the benefits of what might be termed an “interventionist” approach to managing. Drawing on the insights of these studies, we explore three case studies of complex projects to show the importance of ongoing management “interventions” in preventing project failure. We conclude that “interventionism,” as a balance to overreliance on centralized project management systems, may be a fruitful approach to project management in the context of complex projects.

The cult of customer responsiveness: is design innovation the price of a client‐focused construction industry?

Much has been written about the positive contribution made by the customer to innovation in bespoke and low‐volume products like those of construction. Far less attention has been given to the potentially corrosive effects the client might have on innovation. Drawing on three construction case studies, this paper argues that strong client leadership may have negative consequences for innovation, including the suppression of innovation and an overly narrow focus on particular types of innovation. Given that innovation has a key role in the future competitiveness of any industry, it is argued that the role of the client in construction innovation requires more careful examination than it has thus far been afforded.

Shifting the Goal Posts for Design Management in Capital Goods Projects: 'Design for Maintainability'

Two case studies of capital goods projects, both of which were faced with new forms of demand for their products, are reported in this paper. In both cases, the contracting organisations involved were adjusting to new customer requirements for the long-term provision of the services associated with the capital goods they normally produced, rather than for the capital goods themselves. While both contracting organisations recognised the need to re-focus their equipment design efforts, to reflect the need for long-term service reliability (both contracting organisations were tied to penalties associated with agreed service levels), they nevertheless responded differently to this challenge, and their differing responses reflected the differing natures of the extended networks which comprised both projects and the organisational architectures in which the projects were themselves embedded. The paper explores the differing opportunities and barriers to the management of design in complex projects presented by these two case studies. In so doing it points to the conclusion that successful design management in complex projects can depend upon the successful management of the (multiple) contexts in which design takes place.

Working Around the Barriers to Creating and Sharing Knowledge in Capital Goods Projects: The Client's Perspective

The article considers knowledge management issues from the clients perspective. In the example presented, a sludge treatment center procured by Northumbrian Water Ltd (NWL), the task faced by the client was to manage knowledge in a context where the core technology being procured was new and resulted in the need for new knowledge to be created and shared both pre- and post-delivery. In exploring these issues, the article reveals the problems of (and some solutions to) managing knowledge across the project life-cycle and between different groups, where the motivation for generating and sharing knowledge was not the same for all participants.

Translation and convergence in projects: An organizational perspective on project success

A range of theories (actor-network theory, multinodality, and sense making) are drawn together into a single model of project management processes in order to discuss project success and failure. It is argued that success and failure can be characterized in terms of a continuum between project convergence and divergence. The causes of divergence and convergence are discussed with reference to the above theories using four illustrative case studies.

Who is the customer? Maintaining a customer orientation in long-term service-focused projects

This paper considers the implications of the growing trend for Engineer-To-Order (ETO) companies to engage in projects that involve not just the design and manufacture of capital plant and equipment, but also responsibility for downstream aspects of the project such as operations, maintenance and service delivery. These types of long-term, service-focused projects introduce an added dimension of complexity to the project that stems from a proliferation of stakeholders and multiple customers within the project. Drawing on three detailed case studies of projects with a long-term, service focus, this paper explores the problems facing ETO companies and their project managers in terms of identifying who the critical customer is at any particular stage of the project and highlights some implications for the management of the design and innovation process in such ETO projects.

Service-led projects: understanding the meta-project context

The service‐led project is driven by the demand for long‐term service provision based on the output of a conventional capital good. The project management implications of the extended timeframe for such projects are considered and the added risks and uncertainties associated with planning for an unknown future business environment. Detailed case studies of three service‐led engineering projects in the context of port facilities, high‐speed trains and sludge treatment are examined. The findings indicate that service‐led projects exist within the context of a meta‐project that encompasses a consideration of critical activities beyond the normal remit of the project manager. Aligning project stakeholders around a vision for the meta‐project becomes a key task in the successful management of the service‐led project.

The prospects for a production management body of knowledge in business schools: response to Koskela (2017) “Why is management research irrelevant?”

Abstract This article is a response to Lauri Koskela’s recent piece in Construction Management and Economics (“Why is management research irrelevant?” 35(1–2): 4–23) which reflects on the relationship between academic research and management practice in business schools. In particular, Koskela asks why production management research and teaching has disappeared from the business school agenda and why management research has failed to produce a consistent body of knowledge that is of use to management practice. In this article, I try to provide some alternative perspectives on the present and past contexts of management theory and production research. I argue that production research, if not teaching, is alive and well and the site of theory generation, problem-focused research and innovation. I also question the veracity and wisdom of a creating “body of knowledge” in relation to management research and practice-even if it were possible, which I believe it is not. My assessment of the state of research in business schools, at least in the U.K. and the U.S. and notwithstanding a lack of consensus over how to approach management research, is that it is eclectic and vibrant and of much more use to practicing managers in that state.

Images of Projects

known concepts. For example, Sheriff et al. provide a step-by-step introduction to implementing an information management solution to collaboration within the context of the needs for completing a construction project. Similarly, Koseoglu and Bouchlaghem provide a thorough introduction to mobile communications while placing the introduction in the context of a construction site. This approach is valuable in that concepts of network security and design can quickly overtake the context of implementation when the concepts are difficult to grasp and foreign to the project manager. Finally, for both the reader who is interested in an introduction to collaboration and the reader who is implementing a collaboration roadmap, Bouchlaghem provides a concluding chapter focusing on industry collaboration issues. The chapter highlights the results of a practitioner workshop where participants provided input on issues related to collaboration. Within the chapter, both the challenges and benefits for collaboration are summarized from an industry perspective. At the core of this summary is a list in order of importance of the processes that are required for collaborative working. At the top of this list is the appointment of a collaboration champion. Bouchlaghem supports this focus by providing a starting point to develop the goals for collaboration and presenting a roadmap from which a champion can achieve the stated goals. In this context, the book achieves the stated goal of supporting the project or organization that is beginning the journey towards achieving greater collaborative working in construction.