Living Projects
(Original
Version January 2003
Revised March
2004)
©
Successful projects
are a critical part of our work together, and we have learned much over the last
years about establishing clear objectives and managing deliverables, quality,
costs and schedules. Linear planning has
given us some useful approaches but we are now faced with more difficult
challenges as both the complexity of the outcomes and the number of
partnerships continues to increase.
Complex projects often
do not achieve the success that we want in the time frames we plan. Organizational or IT change projects that
involve multiple organizations and stakeholders are often more complex than we expect them to be.
Those projects seem to take on a life of their own, frustrating those
trying to “leverage” success. By a
“complex” project, I mean one where independent agents are interacting with
each other in a variety of ways (Waldrop. 1992, p. 11). This is more than producing a widget. Such projects often involve new information
management and personal or cultural change.
The establishing of a centralized financial system with new business
processes, the development of electronic service delivery between government
and business or real community economic and social development are all complex
projects.
For example, Starfield
Consulting’s recent review of electronic
collaboration options for government service delivery stated it this way:
“Given
these new levels of access and expectations, effective service provision
requires partnerships and alliances that span the new service domains. No one enterprise can do it all and keep up
with the changes. Partnerships and
alliances that provide such services are necessarily complex, often involving
multiple providers, stakeholders and clients, sometimes across the whole
domain, in order to develop and sustain effective responses. Given the pace of change they must also be
agile and adaptive.” (Peterson. 2001, p. 1)
One effort to clarify
such change projects was the development of “re-engineering” by Hammer and Champy. When they
recanted a few years later, they recognized that most re-engineering projects
had failed to achieve their main objectives largely due to “people”
issues. Most project teams and managers
that I have encountered, however, still rely primarily on the best of linear
planning and engineering to try to “manage” the change. This is largely because the linear paradigm
has served us well for developing materials or products. Many are still trying to articulate and
improve on that approach.
When projects get
stuck or it becomes clear that the current approach will not produce the
intended results there is a tendency to adjust by narrowing the scope or
redefining success. In a complex project
it is often impossible to know how much time it will really take or how much it
will really cost to get it done. As the
project grows, one then gets a better sense of what can be done, by when. If this does not fit the expectations of the
sponsors or the contract for deliverables, then the negotiations (or
deceptions) begin. Either the scope has
to be narrowed or what constitutes success rethought.
Sometimes this is
accompanied by finding someone to blame.
Project sponsors or managers would prefer not to blame themselves, so
they often blame the people who were supposed to carry out or implement the
changes associated with the project. For
example, I have heard “the existing group did not have the new capabilities
required by the software or could not change or learn fast enough” or that “the
planning team did not really understand what they were asking for in the
Request for Proposal, so how could the developer actually build it in the time
required.”
The linear planning
process is very useful for some aspects of projects. This is especially true for building a
physical unit from component parts where the task is straight forward. Many engineering tasks can be successful in
this way. However, the same linear
planning process does not work well when “people” have to change their thinking
or behavior in order to achieve success or when communities of organizations
must collaborate to reach the projects goals.
Thomas Kuhn developed
the concept of “paradigm” in relation to changes in scientific research and
learning. (Kuhn, 1970) He saw
“scientific paradigm” as set of practices or as an exemplar that leads to
certain results. If you follow a certain
paradigm’s steps, then you will get certain results. This is a different meaning for the term than
what has often been emphasized. It is
about practice or processes that create theory, not the worldview itself (Wilbur.
2002). A shift in paradigm or a
transformation is required when you no longer regularly get the results that
you expect from the processes you are using.
Discovering that the Newtonian physics paradigm would not lead to
accurate description of quantum phenomena was part of the development of a new
paradigm.
The motivation for
next paradigm for project “management” is emerging from practices that do not
give us the results we expect. We have
learned much from strategic planning and scientific project management. Becoming clearer about the quality of the
outcomes we seek, our assumptions about the context, the costs involved, the
steps in our strategy or how we will measure success are critical skills. Identifying problems and finding solutions
seems logical, given our worldviews. We now require another perspective and a shift in our set of
practices to better understand and lead complex projects.
A real paradigm shift
or a transformative change transcends and includes the previous paradigm or
worldview. To shift toward more
effective projects or organizations requires new perspectives on how human
systems work. We now know that human
organizations are not mechanical systems even though they have some mechanical
components. The mechanical or physical
components sometimes provide the spine or the frameworks that support the
living system or organism. The next
paradigm for successful projects incorporates recent learning on projects as
complex adaptive systems.
Complex adaptive
systems theory has been developing for the last 30 years and is beginning to
inform most of the literature on organizations and change. Since the work of Ludwig von Bertalanfy in the 1960’s to describe a “general systems
theory”, scientists have been exploring the relationships between the
components of complex systems, including living organisms (von Bertalanfy. 1968).
They have discovered that living systems have certain characteristics
that differentiate them from mechanisms.
In living systems, the ongoing order or patterns emerges from the
interaction among the parts. It is
through the “self-organization” of the components that life emerges and becomes
self-replicating.
I believe that
successful complex projects become living systems; they take on a life of their
own. The “new science” of the Santa Fe
Institute and others gives us some clues as to how to maximize the conditions
for that life to emerge and be productive.
|
Conditions for Self-Organization |
Examples of What Living Projects Then Need |
|
A relatively safe
and nutrient environment |
Sufficient financial
resources and political support or a fertile “skunk works” culture. This
means support for learning, mistakes and growth and sponsors and leaders who
can enable that environment. |
|
High level diversity
of the elements with the potential for complex relationships |
Complex
multi-stakeholder projects have the diversity, but project teams often do not
engage the complex relationships in ways that enable self-organization. A
project team with enough diversity to reflect both the systems and the skills
involved or a clear strategy to engage the diversity is required. |
|
A drive for change
or a search for fitness in its environment |
Commitment and drive
are a requirement, but an ability to perceive and agilely respond to changes
in the social, political and technical environment are keys to success in
projects. This means a balancing of results with the acceptance of
change. Measurements of that are
transparent to all involved enables self-organizing agility. |
|
Relatively sparse prior
connection of the components |
The ability to
generate new connections between the components of a system. A “hard wired” set of unchanging
relationships can create stale or ponderous projects. Engaging new people or changing the
relationships is required for vitality. |
|
Functioning at the
edge of chaos |
When things get
confusing because of changes in the environment or unexpected situations, the
chaos can be an opportunity to find the next level of project life or
energy. The challenge for project
managers is to allow the new to emerge rather than shut it down out of
fear. It is possible to intentionally
allow the pattern of project development to emerge, within boundaries, toward
a clear and compelling goal, rather than be prescribed from the beginning. |
If everything in a
project is neat and orderly, and running like a clock, it will likely stay as a
clock and not live. If the changes are
substantial or transformative, requiring people to learn and do new things, then
applying what we are learning about complex systems, chaos and the emergence of
life could be the difference between real success and window dressing.
Over the last 30 years
we have also been learning how humans construct their view of the world and how
that social construction influences what actually happens. Traditional organizational change theory has
focused on identifying problems and then trying to fix the problems. This perspective works well in mechanical
systems. If you fix a broken wheel then
the car will run better. There is
growing evidence that if you focus on the problem in human systems you can
decrease the energy for bringing about change.
Focusing on what has worked in the past and extending that learning to
the present can create more energy for a living system to move toward growth
and positive change. Focusing on the
problems often leads to finding someone to blame rather than finding ways to
move forward toward solutions.
Cooperrider, Jane Magruder-Watkins and other appreciative thinkers believe that this creates less energy for change than looking first at what is working. Appreciative Inquiry is a reframing of the proactive planning process, an innovation in action/research. It follows a similar pattern by gathering information (data or stories) and collective interpretation of that information to develop propositions, drawing conclusions and developing actions. It does it quite differently than traditional action research because it has re-framed (or socially constructed) the process “appreciatively”. It engages a system in appreciating what has worked and what gives energy for positive change and then articulating provocative propositions that clarify what is to be done next. Propositions that are grounded in the life-force or energy of a system provide a stimulus for positive growth and self-organization (Magruder Watson. 2001)
Appreciative Inquiry
is a less linear approach to change than action/research. It requires intuition as well as real
information from those involved. That “information” is embedded in the “stories” of what works. Inquiry into the stories of where there has
been energy in the past taps into the current energy for change of the
organization or project. Stories provide much more information about
human systems and people’s experience then do independent lists of information
or data. Stories integrate experience at
the individual, social and concrete levels. It is an intentional way of grounding the
vision of what is next in the life-force or energy that is present in the
living system. Articulating the values
behind the story clarifies what has worked in the past. Constructing
provocative statements in the present tense gives light or energy to actions
that can be taken now and tomorrow. The
approach seems to enables a system to find a better fit with its environment
and use and build upon the capabilities and assets that it has already.
Projects that require
the active engagement of people must pay attention to the energy or life-force
for change that is present with those people.
Some projects prefer not to ground themselves in the realities of their
related systems for fear that the lack of skill or commitment will bring down
the project or mean that it will take longer than projected. Unless the plan is
to fire all staff and start again the project at some point will still need to
build on the strengths and successes of the people who are there. Those people will need to learn the new
approaches and culture required by a new technology or business process.
These issues are also
often faced by the project team itself.
Teams have their own ups and downs as they find ways to work together
and accomplish their goals, particularly if they reflect any of the diversity
of the complex systems in which the project is embedded. When something is not working as hoped or
planned then the team often loses energy and the ability to “fit” with its
changing environment. It can stagnate or
fall into divisive conflicts. Thus,
project teams also need to discover how to build, sustain or renew the energy
or life-force to make it through the normal ups and downs of living systems.
It is not possible to
“control” lively self-organizing processes.
It is possible to enhance Kauffman’s conditions and intentionally create
a focused “space” within which self-organization flourishes and enables a
project or change to develop and grow effectiveness.
Open Space Technology
does just that. Discovered by
Open Space Technology
creates the conditions for emergent self-organization around a theme or topic
of the meeting, be that the development of the elements of a new corporate
strategy or a project to re-design airplane doors. The sponsor and the facilitator co-construct
a real and positive theme related to the task at hand. The sponsor invites an appropriate diversity
of participants and informs them as to the context and anything that must be
taken as given for there to be a successful outcome. Sponsors also decide how many resources they
will commit to the “nutrient environment” of the meeting and the ongoing work.
When the group
gathers, however, the sponsor becomes a participant in the self-organization
related to the theme. Participants sit
in a circle to suggest that new relationship patterns can and must emerge to
find new approaches. The agenda topics
are created by the participants and the work groups are self-selected. Open Space Technology operates on four
principles and one law. These reinforce
the conditions for leadership to emerge from the group and for participants to
take responsibility for the nature of their participation. The following table gives some examples as to
how the principles of Open Space Technology enable lively and productive
self-organization during the session.
|
Open Space Principle |
Living Project Practice |
|
Whoever comes is the
right people |
After the invitation
is given, it is the people who care enough and can show up who are the ones
to take the conversation, or project, forward in a given time and space. That could be one person or a 100. If they care about the topic they can move
it forward. |
|
Whatever happens is
the only thing that could have |
Conversations,
people and projects will get as far as they can in a given time frame. To worry about what might or should have
been prevents doing what is possible in the moment. Being so attached to particular outcomes,
particularly those that are not based in what can really happen now, is
debilitating for projects or teams.
Taking full advantage of what is possible now often leads to
surprising results in a short time frame. |
|
Whenever it starts
is the right time |
This may seem to be
an anathema to PERT charts and engineering plans. Just-in-time delivery of resources for
manufacturing or road construction is not what we are talking about
here. When “it” is real dialogue,
clear thinking, new strategy or spirited commitment, then it starts when it
starts. Making this assumption reduces
performance stress. |
|
Whenever it’s over
it’s over |
In any given meeting
or event (whether part of a project or not), a time will come when it is no longer
productive or meaningful, when the energy for “it” dissipates. As human systems there are limits to
attention and connection. When a group
reaches that point, it is better to say, it’s over, at least for now. Trying to continue on takes too much energy. If it’s not over, it is better to keep
going rather than let the artificial time frames of a meeting prevent going
forward. |
In Open Space
meetings, the participants practice being fully responsible for their use of time
and space to find the energy or spirit to move forward on the topic. This is further aided by the “Law of Two
Feet”. Individuals in Open Space
meetings who are neither learning nor contributing in a work group or
discussion are encouraged to move on, to go do something else where they can
learn or contribute. This freedom of
motion enables the behavior of bumble bees and butterflies (back to our living
systems metaphor). Bumble bees go from
group to group and cross pollinate ideas and butterflies stand at the coffee
pot and attract others into connections and conversations. This creates a flow to open space
events. Like any good self-organizing
process, the event allows “components” to find each other and connect in ways
that often enable new insights or personal connections that can serve the
interests of the theme or project. Many
participants also talk about a connection to the whole, the spirit of the
organization that energizes and informs new thinking and behavior.
Using Open Space Technology,
project work groups can emerge with people who have a passion for their part of
the project. Some of the energy and
commitment from such groups can carry on until the task is completed, when the
conditions are right. Intentionally and
appropriately connecting the emergent energy with the often required
accountability hierarchy cans sustain the momentum and the performance. If people are overloaded with other work,
have few resources to carry out the effort or the context changes then sustaining
a particular group’s energy may be more difficult. There are a variety of ways to support and
re-invigorate such groups.
Open Space Technology
can also be seen as a way to navigate between letting go of things that cannot
work and finding what can. A key
component of Open Space theory is that living systems do “grieve” when a loss
is substantial, when an idea doesn’t work or a part of a project fails, and
that can block moving forward. Complex
human systems become attached to ways of doing things or ideas that they “are
sure” will work. As
Harrison Owen states in his new and yet to be published book, “It is only when we fully appreciate what we
have lost that we can fully release our attachment” (Owen. 2002). It is surprising how Open Space Technology meetings can often
create a safe space for dealing with the attachment and moving on.
For the time of an
Open Space event, participants can practice being a spirited living system and
can achieve substantial results in a short period of time. By creating the conditions for the interests
and passions of the participants to emerge in addressing the task at hand, this
approach can accelerate the learning and the growth in effectiveness of
projects.
We are going through a shift in our view of what practices or processes are required to get the results we want and expect. If we agree that complex systems are better understood as living systems (with some mechanical parts) than as mechanisms, then our understanding of how to foster change or reach goals must also change from the mechanical images we for the most part hold.
Common “project manager” language belies
our current understanding. For example, you cannot “leverage” an amoeba or tiger the
way you can a financial position or a large rock. “Aligning” wheels on a car is certainly
possible. We can cage tigers to “align”
their behavior. We can get our spine
“aligned” so that our posture is better and that we have a good frame for our
body system. We cannot “align” all the
components of a living system without reducing its ability to adapt to the next
change that comes along.
We can attract commitment and energy
through good leadership, rewards and good ideas. We can prod or disturb a living thing so that
is gets moving and begins to discover what is needed to find its “fit” with its
environment. It is amazing what simple
communication between living components can do. Some of the most complex engineering projects are carried out by ants
that live for one day each, have no command and control hierarchy (it is a myth
that the queen gives instructions, only baby ants) and have a surprising
communication process. We are learning
that our brains, the cities that work and the best of current software have
emergent properties that no one can or should try to control. (Johnson.
2001) Living projects have to engage
those emergent processes if they are to survive let alone be successful or
thrive. Life is a state of continuous
change and development.
As I stated before, a
shift to a new paradigm or set of practices transcends and includes the
previous one. Recognizing that we need a
new perspective on projects does not negate the need to use and improve upon
what we have learned over the last 100 years in developing effective project
management. It does not negate the need
to set target outcomes. It just puts
them in a new, more complex and reality based context. It requires that we know and understand the
implications of the fact that living systems take on a life of their own. Aspects of those outcomes will likely have to
change as the project grows into what is possible in its context or
environment. Being too attached to
particular outcomes is not healthy.
Anyone who has raised children or cats knows this. Being able to both provide focus and to flow
with what emerges is a different set of skills than management by objectives.
The next “project
management” set of practices are emerging.
Those who effectively sponsor and lead projects already have changed
some of their behavior and are following their intuitions as to how to create
success. I have talked with facilitators
and consultants around the world who are trying new practices like Open Space
Technology to accelerate the growth of projects.
Starfield Consulting is now applying its “Project Accelerator” approach
in a variety of organizations, using living system engagement with Appreciative
Inquiry insights as part of the practice.
Becoming aware of the full implications that complex projects are living
realities will come as we experiment with new practices and develop new theory
based on what we learn.
There is much more to
be learned as we translate our current experience and practice into the new
perspective. We need to clarify the
roles, tasks and capabilities needed for sponsors, for project managers or a
PMO, to effectively enable a self-organizing, successful living project. The nature of the governance processes for
such a project also require much more thought, especially when a community of
organizations must form partnerships to sponsor and support a project. There are, however, quite a few of us now on
this journey and the learning is just beginning.
Cooperrider,
Sorensen, Yaeger & Witney. 2001. Appreciative Inquiry: An Emerging Direction for Organizational
Development. Stipes Publishing.
Johnson,
Steven. 2001. Emergence. Scribner.
Kauffman, Stuart. 1995 At Home in the Universe.
Kuhn, Thomas. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,
2nd Edition.
Magruder
Watkins & Mohr. 2001. Appreciative Inquiry. Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
Owen, Harrison. 1997. Open Space Technology: A
User’s Guide. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco.
Owen, Harrison. The Practice
of Peace. Unpublished. September 2002.
Peterson, Panchyshyn & King. 2001. eCollaboration in Complex Communities. Starfield Consulting. 2001.
Von Bertalanfy,
Ludwig. 1968. General Systems Theory. Braziller. New York
Waldrop, M. Mitchell. 1992. Complexity.
Wilbur, Ken. 2002. “Kosmos
Trilogy”. Unpublished.