Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
19-03-19
1
Tuesday,19March2019Montreal,Quebec
MoniqueAubryPhD,SchoolofBusiness,UniversitéduQuébecàMontréal,CanadaMélanieLavoie-Tremblay,PhD,SchoolofNursing,McGillUniversity,Montréal,Canada
Rethinkingorganizationaldesignformanagingmultipleprojects
Aubry, M., & Lavoie-Tremblay, M. (2018). Rethinking Organizational Design for Managing Multiple Projects. International Journal of Project Management, 36(1), 12-26. Early version of this paper has been presented at EURAM 2016. A short version of this paper, for professionals, has been published as: Aubry, M., & Lavoie-Tremblay, M. (2017). Organizing for the management of projects: The Project Management Office in the dynamics of Organizational Design. In S. Sankaran, R. Müller, & N. Drouin (Eds.), Organizational Project Management: Achieving Strategies through projects. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press.
Project Management Seminar People, Process & Results
Following the latest reform of the health and social services almost all healthcare entities have been merged. I am the deputy CEO of one of these merged institutions. One of my main roles is to organize the internal functioning of our organization. In this approach, I have set up a coordination structure at the top level of the organization. I have dissociated on one hand the coordination of current operations (i.e., clinical activities) in an integrated services with the reform context, and on the other hand, the performance and improvement of which one component is monitoring and control "all" projects (strategic, lean, accreditation, and so forth). Personal email received recently from a decision-maker, translated and adapted by one of the authors.
«Rethinking»?
Monique Aubry & Mélanie Lavoie-Tremblay 2
19-03-19
2
«Rethinking»?
• Difficulty to find out literature that addresses this question on how to organize for the management of multiple concurrent projects in a pluralist context (complex, multiple stakeholders, uncertainty)
• Predominance of contingency theory
• Lack of social dynamics
• Lack of a process view (rather than a “thing”)
• Opportunity to relate project management findings to the theory of organization
Monique Aubry & Mélanie Lavoie-Tremblay 3
OrganizationalDesign• Thispaperisinspiredfrompreviousworkoninnovativeformsoforganizing(Pettigrewetal.,2003).
• Withaparticularperspectivecomingfromthestudyofprojectmanagementofficesandgovernancecommitteesfromadiversityoftheories,methodologiesandempiricalapproaches(Aubry,2013).
• Thispaperprovidesanopportunitytobettersituatethisresearchandthepreviousonesinawiderdebateoforganizationaldesign.
Monique Aubry & Mélanie Lavoie-Tremblay 4
19-03-19
3
OrganizationalDesign• Organizational design refers to understanding of how to
organize people and resources in order to collectively accomplish desired ends. (Greenwood & Miller, 2011)
• Greenwood & Miller (2011) claim that organizational design has been neglected within recent research in the organizational theory.
• Project management field has a good potential to contribute to organizational theory: P-form (Söderlund & Tell, 2009; project business (Artto & Wickstrom, 2005); project-based and project-oriented firms (Geraldi, 2009; Hobday, 2000); project management offices (Aubry et al., 2011); governance (Müller, 2011; Turner & Keegan, 1998); and temporal-permanent interfaces (Winch, 2014).
Monique Aubry & Mélanie Lavoie-Tremblay 5
LiteratureReview1.Organizationaldesigninthetheoryoforganization
– InspiredfromFenton&Pettigrew(2000)andVandeVenetal.,(2013)
GlobalApproach Mainissues Representativeauthor
Universalform:bureaucracyandmultidivisional
• Todevelopamodeloforganizationalbehaviordesignedtocontroltheactivitiesofmembers
• Historyoforganizationsinanevolutionistperspective
Weber,1947Chandler,1962
Contingency • Todevelopageneralizedtypologyoforganizationsformsbasedoneitherasidealtypesorasvariablesformodelingorganizations
• Matrixform• Configurationalapproach• Industrialeconomics
Stinchcombe,1959Burns&Stalker,1961Galbraith,1977Miller&Friesen,1964Williamson,1975
NetworkAnalysis • Formsoforganizationsbasedontheorganizationofactions
Burt,1978;Granovetter,1992
Newformsoforganizingforinnovation
• Strategizing/structuring• Networks:dynamicconstructionofnetworks• Knowledge• Postbureaucratic
Pettigrewetal.,2003Callon,1986;Latour,2005Hedlund,1994Clegg,2012
Monique Aubry & Mélanie Lavoie-Tremblay 6
19-03-19
4
Keyquestion/Contributions Representativeauthors
History of individual organization to describe and explain the resulting organizational design and the dynamic process.
Scranton, 2015
Matrix type of organization: question of how to organize projects in matrix type of organizations based on a limited number of variables; search for ideal type of PMO
Hobbs and Aubry, 2011; Hobbs and Ménard, 1993; Larson, 2004
Economic theory: transaction cost understanding of governance mechanisms for project-based organizations. Ethics is put in relation with this economic perspective through the governance structure.
Müller et al, 2016; Turner and Keegan, 1998; Turner and Keegan, 2001; Turner and Müller, 2003; Winch, 2014
Diversity of situations: Overall context (including history of the organization) has priority over individual variables. Some generic configurations are identified.
Engwall, 2003; Hobday, 2000; Lampel and Jha, 2004
P-form, project-based or project-oriented organizations, multi-project firms.Project management capabilities in project-based organization and in relation to permanent functions
Cattani et al., 2011; Huemann, 2010; Geraldi, 2008; Söderlund and Tell, 2009.
Power and politics are always part of a governance structure and its evolution in large organizations and major projects.
Flyvbjerg, 2001; Miller and Lessard, 2000
Networks are understood as a type of governance with its specific mechanisms. Given the network-like structure in project-based organizations, new knowledge mechanisms are developed based on situated learning and reflective practices.
Bresnen et al., 2005; DeFillippi, 2001; DeFillippi and Sydow, 2016; Müller et al., 2013;
LiteratureReview2.Organizingforprojects
Monique Aubry & Mélanie Lavoie-Tremblay 7
Keyquestion/Contributions Representativeauthors
Networks are understood as a type of governance with its specific mechanisms. Given the network-like structure in project-based organizations, new knowledge mechanisms are developed based on situated learning and reflective practices.
Bresnen et al., 2005; DeFillippi, 2001; DeFillippi and Sydow, 2016; Müller et al., 2013;
Projects follow a strategy. Competing values in the contribution of PMOs to the organizational performance.
Aubry et al., 2012; Morris and Jamieson, 2004
Tensions and paradoxes in organizational design leading to frequent changes. Governance structure. This perspective admits the coexistence of competing views on governance in a continuum of, on the one hand, maximizing the utility of agency and, on the other hand, governance being a cooperative approach between multiple stakeholders.
Aubry et al., 2014; DeFillippi and Arthur, 1998 Müller, 2017
LiteratureReview2.Organizingforprojects
Monique Aubry & Mélanie Lavoie-Tremblay 8
19-03-19
5
LiteratureReview3.ResearchquestionTherearetwomainconclusionsfromtheaboveliteraturereview• Inprojectmanagementfield,thereisalackofrecognitionofthe
managementaspectunderneaththeresearchonstructures(-ing),thatistheorganizationaldesign.
• Giventhevarietyofterms(fragmentation)usedtotalkaboutthestructureintheprojectmanagementliterature,thereisaneedtobetterunderstandwhatisgoingonintheorganizationwhencomestimetodesignawayfordeliveringmultipleprojects.Thisunderstandingmayleadtoaproposalforanintegrativeconcept.
• Theresearchquestionis:Howisorganizationaldesignperformedinthemanagementofmultipleprojects?
Monique Aubry & Mélanie Lavoie-Tremblay 9
Scopeofthisresearch
Monique Aubry & Mélanie Lavoie-Tremblay 10
19-03-19
6
TheoreticalFrameworkTheoriesinconcert(Greenwood&Miller,2010)forabetterunderstandingof
pluralisticcontext(Denisetal.,2007)
Monique Aubry & Mélanie Lavoie-Tremblay 11
• Thisresearchisdesigned“[…]toaddressissuesinwhichpeopleareconcerned”(Schram,2012,p.23).
• Theoveralldesignisbasedon3in-depthcase-studiesinuniversityhospitalsfacingmajororganizationaltransformations
• Multiplemethods
Methodology
Monique Aubry & Mélanie Lavoie-Tremblay 12
19-03-19
7
GlobalMethodology
1 2
Monique Aubry & Mélanie Lavoie-Tremblay 13
CaseDescription
Monique Aubry & Mélanie Lavoie-Tremblay 14
19-03-19
8
Case A
Case B
Case C
Organizational Designs
Monique Aubry & Mélanie Lavoie-Tremblay 15
Case B
Year Government decisions Construction Hospital Management Management of projects
1996 Administrative mergers of 3 hospitals
1999 Announcement for the construction of a new hospital on a unique site
2000 Announcement of the site
2003 Change of political party to Liberal
2006 Decision to change the site
2008 Political tensions on the site change for the new hospital
Launch of the call for proposals for PPP
Change of General Manager - Interim
2009 Change of General Manager
2010 Start of construction of the Center for Research
2011 Decision of the PPP partner and start of the construction of the new building for more than 2 billion CAD
Authorisation of the budget for the PMO
Nomination of the PMO director and start of PMO operations with hiring of experts
2012 Change of political party to Parti Québécois
2012 Government Report –recommendation to change the model for PMO auto financing
Impact from Rapport Biron: auto-financing model for PMO
2013 Delivery of the Phase 1 Research Center
Change of General Manager - Interim
The PMO Director also assumes the operational responsibilities for one hospital site.
2016 Outside the scope of this research
Moving
ExampleofIntra-caseAnalysis
Monique Aubry & Mélanie Lavoie-Tremblay 16
19-03-19
9
Number of projects
Innovation
Type Risk or uncertainty Degree
Prod./serv Process Market Input Organis. No/Low Med. High Incr. Radical
Case A 43 16 31 4 5 23 8 23 11 20 22
Case B 81 25 19 9 7 50 27 20 11 36 22
Case C 39 8 33 1 2 21 28 7 4 22 15
Note: the total is sometimes higher or lower that the number of projects because some projects fit into two types or other information may be unknown at the time of data collection
Portfolio of projects
Preparation 1st period: Initiation
2nd period: Cruising speed
3rd period Last sprint
Taming period PMO / nomination Lag period PMO
Start-up
Case A Visits to international sites 2007 1 year 2008 Organisational
Turbulence
Hard [Adverse] control
Making it happen!
Case B Conflicting period - site 2011 Very short 2011 Organisational
Turbulence Organisational Turbulence
Case C Unformal preparation 2009 1 year 2012 Smooth
transitioning Keep moving
Trajectories of transformation project
ExamplesofInter-casesAnalysis
Monique Aubry & Mélanie Lavoie-Tremblay 17
1. Questioningmimetism.DeliberateoccasionsformimetismhappenbetweenthethreePMOdirectors(DiMaggio&Powell,1983).Moreover,thethreecaseshavemanythingsincommon:universityhospitals,acomparabletransformationproject,sameregion,similartimeframe.However,theyhadspecificorganizationaldesign---Rationality?
2. Organizationaldesignasaprocess.Consideringtheirtrajectory,theyhavehadalagperiodbeforeengagingintheproject,investingonthefront-end.Theytooktimetopreparethechangeandthinkabouttheorganizationaldesigntosucceedinthetransformationproject.
3. Theoreticalcontributions.– Helpinmoreinclusiveconceptstoavoidfragmentationofthefield– Atwo-wayrelationshipwiththeoryoforganization:mobilizingorganizationaldesign
andcontributingtothedevelopmentofthistheory
4. Practicalcontributions– Fordecision-makersengagedinorganizationaldesign:ascontextiscrucialtotakeinto
account,thekeymessageisbeingslowinorganizationaldesign.Making-sensetakestime.
Discussion
Monique Aubry & Mélanie Lavoie-Tremblay 18
19-03-19
10
1. Contextisofprimeimportancewhenengaginginorganizationaldesign.Contextreferstotheoverallunderstandinginwhichtheorganizationisembedded.Itincludesthetechnical,strategicandinstitutionallevels(MorrisandGeraldi,2011).
2. Organizationaldesignisbetterunderstoodasanongoingprocessthatisconstantlyonthemove,ashasbeenpositedbyprocesstheory(Hernes,2014).
3. Organizationaldesigntakestime.Thishaspromptedustocointhetermsloworganizationaldesign.Overall,thismeansthatthereisnoidealmodeltocopy;thattheparticularcontext,historyandidentityofanorganizationmustbetakenintoconsideration;andthatonemustengageinacollectiveefforttoenactwhatisfoundoutsideandinsidetheorganization—whichtakestime.
Conclusion
Monique Aubry & Mélanie Lavoie-Tremblay 19
1. Limitations
– Moreworktobedoneonthecontributiontotheory– Theoverarchingapproachofthispapermayhiddensmallimportanteventor
elementtobeconsideredinorganizationaldesign(theforestandthetrees).– Regionallimitation(aswellasanopportunity)
2. Futuresdirections– Focusontheprocessofdesigning:understandingthephenomenonina
constantmovingoforganizations(Hernes,2014)
Conclusion
Monique Aubry & Mélanie Lavoie-Tremblay 20