Integration-The Essential Functin of Project Management

7/28/2019 Integration-The Essential Functin of Project Management

1/26

3. Integration: The Essential Functionof Project Management

Linn C. Stuckenbruck'

INTRODUCTION

Project management has achieved almost universal recognition as them ost effective way to ens ure the success of large, com plex, multidiscipli--nary tasks. The success of project management is based on the simplecon cep t that th e sole authority for the planning, the resource allocation,and the direction and control of a single time- and budget-limited enter-prise is vested in a single individual. This single-point authority and re-sponsibility constitutes the greatest strength of project management, butit also constitutes its greatest weakness. T he press ures for the completionof an often almost impossible task must of necessity be focused on howeffectively th e project manager carries out his o r her job(20).

Therefore, project management is not a panacea, and unfortunately itdo es not alw ays work. I ts use does not guarantee th e success of a task;rather, it takes a great deal more. It takes great dedication and consider-

able effort on the part of an experienced and talented project managerleading an equally experienced and talented project team to ensure thata.project will be a success. H ow ever, even these proI.C r3 r. ;t> -entsare notalw ay s enough-projects occasionally fail.

Determining the real o r basic cause or cau ses of projecr fii~lure an be afrustrating experience. It can be very difficult to pin down the basiccau ses b ecause they ar e seldom simple o r clear-cut. T he problems will benum erou s, extremely com plex, very much interrelated, and often deeplyhidden. It is all too easy to pick a scapegoat, and the project managerisusually the handiest person. Of course the project manager may not be at

Dr. Linn C . Stuckenbruck is w ith the Institute o f Saf ely and Syst ems Management at theUniv ersity o f Southern California where he teaches project management and orher manage-ment courses. Prior to this he spent seventeen years with th e Rocketdyne Division ofRockw ell International where he held various nianagement positions. He holds a Ph.D. fromthe State University of Iowa, and is the author of the book Tlre I~nple t~ ienm rionf Pro jectA4nt~nge11irtrt-TIte Professional's Hnnd book , published by Addison-Wesley PublishingCompany.


2/26

fault , but the re a re defin itely any nu mber of things that project m anagerscan d o wrong. Am ong the many pi tfal ls tb at th e unwary o r inexper iencedproject ma nag er ca n fall into is a fai lure to completely understand some ofthe bas ic a spe cts of the job.

Project m anagemen t can, of course , be perceived a s jus t anothe r jobrequiring an exp erien ced and conscientious manager. But, is just anyexpe rienced man ager prepared for the job of project m anag eme nt?

I t is a m anage me nt axiom that the overall job of every ma nageris tocreate within the organization an environment which will facilitate theaccomplishment of i ts objectives(1 1) .

Certain ly th e jo b of the project manager f its this role ve ry well .Inaddit ion, al l ma nag ers, including project managers, are responsible for theuniversally acccpted managerial functions of planning, organizing, staff-ing, direc ting , and contl-olling.I t can then be asked wh ether project man-agement is really significantly different from managementin general . Anold management c l iche s ta tes ,"A man ager is a manager," o r putting ita n o t h er w a y , "A g o ~ d anager can manage any th ing." Th is s t a tementimplies that th er e is little real difference between the job of the projectmanage r and that of an y l ine o r disciplinary manager. H ow eve r, thereisone e xtre me ly im port ant, very real , and significantly different aspect ofthe job of the project manager which makesi t different from generalmanagement .

By d efin it ion proj ects a re complex and multidisciplinary task s; there-fore, project managers must of necessity be very much awareof o r e v e n

in some cases completely preoccupied with the problem of integratingtheir projects. This problcm, which is of major importanceto all but thesimplest pro jects , seldom confron ts l ine managers. This ch ap ter will dis-cuss this essen tial f t~ nc tio n f project integration and indicate the variousactions that are necessary to achieve a fully integrated project .

S Y S T E M S INTEGRATION

The term systems integration is usually applicable to most projects be-cause inevitably a project is a system. This term is used to indicate theprocess of i n t ~g ra t i ng ny system being uti lized or developed, whether i t

7

i s hardware , sof tware , an organizat ion, or some other type of sys tcm.This process of systems integration has been identif ied as an importantmanagem ent funct ion which has been described by Law rence and Lorch.They pointed out that with the rapid advances in technology and theincreased complexity of systems to be managed, there is an increasedneed both for gre ater specialization (differentiat ion) and fo r t ighter coor-dination (integration) (13). An effective manager has a needfo r both;how ever, s in ce these two needs are essenl ia lly antagonis t ic , one c an usu-


3/26

ally be achieved only at the expense of the other U4). It can be describedas a irade-off between tRese t\vo needs as shown in Figure 3-1.

Referring to Fiqure 3-1, it has been suggcsted that the ideal high-perfor-

mance manager f n l f ~o:!

th.: arro\iVtmidway between differentiation andintegration, and probably is typical of high-perfol-mance top management.It is also true that line or discipline management usually falls closer to thedifferentiation arrow, and that the truly effective project manager fallscloser to the integration arrow. This model emphasizes the importance ofthe project manager's role as an integrator.

Systems integration is related to what Koontz and O'Donncll call "theessence of management-coordination, or the purpose of management isthe achievement of harmony of individual effort toward the accomplish-ment of group goals" (12). However, doesn't every manager have thisfunction? Yes, but the project manager has to be preoccupied with i t . Theproject manager's major responsibility is assuring that a particular systemor activity is assembled so that all of the components, parts, subsystemsand organizational units, and people fit together as a functioning, inte-grated whole according to plan. Carrying out this responsibility comprisesthe function of systems integration.

INTEGRATING THE PROJECT

Every project is a system in that it consists of many interrelated andinterconnected parts or elements which must function together as a"whole." Projects vary greatly in size, complexity, and urgency; how-ever, all but the simplest projects have a common element in that they

Differentiation + High performancemanager - op

management

Discipline

- / ahager +Integration

/o w performance

manager

Figure 3-1. Measuring managerial performance.


4/26

must be integrated. Project integration can then be described as the pro-cess of ensuring that al l elements of the project its-tasks, subsystems,componenrs, parts, organizational units, and people-fit together as anintegrated whole which functions according to plan. All levels of manage-ment ascribe to this goal, but project managers must be preoccupied withit since they have the direct responsibility to ensure that it occurs onevery project. These project elemcnts will not automatically come to-gether; the project manager must nake a concerted effort and take anumbereof specific actions to ensure that integration occurs.

The principal precaution that the project manager must take is to make\

certain that adequate attention is given to every element of the projectsystem. It is easy to be trapped into thinking of the project as consistingentirely of the hardware or other system being designed, developed, orconstructed. Many elements of the project may have little direct relation-ship to the system being worked on, but they may be critical to ultimateproject success. Most projects involve a number of different organiza-tional units, many only in a service or support capacity, and an infinitevariety of people may be stakeholders in some aspect of the project. Thetotal project system consists of everything and everyone that has anythingto do with the project. The diversity of the project system is indicated inFigure 3-2.

Top management

Suppliers I Subcontractors

Personnel T H E W O R L D Financialand training OF TH E PROJECT system

management

Social Technicalcontacts I support

Computerprogrammers

Figure 3-2. The total project system.


5/26

INTEGRATION IN THE MATRIX

The job of project integration is most important and most difficult whenthe project is organized in the matrix mode. The matrix is a complex

organizational form that can become extremely complicated in very largeprojects. The matrix is complex because it evolved to meet the needs ofour increasingly complex society with its very large problems and result-ing very large projects. The conventional hierarchical functional manage-ment structure usually finds itself in difficulty when dealing with largeprojects. The pure project organization is a solution when the project isvery large, but it is not always applicable to smaller projects. Therefore,management, in an effort to obtain the advantages of both project andfunctional organizational forms, has evolved the matrix, which is actuallya superimposition of project organizations upon a functional organization.

The matrix is not for everyone (23). It should only be utilized if its advan-tages outweigh the resulting organizational complexity.Why is systems integration difficult in the matrix organization? What is

so different about the matrix? Since the matrix is such a complex organi-zational form, all decisions and actions of project managers become verydifficult, primarily because they must constantly communicate and inter-act with many functional managers. The project manager discovers thatthe matrix organization is inherently a conflict situation. The matrixbrings out the presence of conflicting project and functional goals andobjectives. In addition, the project manager finds that many establishedfunctional managers who must contribute to the project feel threatened,and continual stresses and potential conflicts result.

The matrix organization has evolved to cope with the basic contl~ctinherent in any large organization-the needs of specialization versus theneeds of coordination (18). These divergent needs in the hierarchical orga-nizational structure lead to inevitable conflict between functional and topmanagement, and often lead to nonoptimizing decisions. A11 major deci-sions must be made by top management who may have insufficient infor-mation. The matrix organization was a natural evolution growing out ofthe need for someone who could work problems through the experts andspecialists. The project manager has assumed the role of "decision brokercharged with the difficult job of solving problems through the experts"(18), all of whom know more about their particular field than he or she.

The role of the project manager in the matrix organization has beenanalyzed by Galbraith (8, 9), Lawrence and Lorsch (13, 14 , 15, 16), andDavis and Lawrence (5). They point out that the horizontal communica-tion in a matrix organization requires an open, problem-solving climate.However, as pointed out by Galbraith (8, 9 ) , when the subtasks in an


6/26

organization are greatly differentiated a m atrix structur e may be requiredto achieve integration. Th e integrator coordinatesthe decision processes

' I across the interfaces of differentiation. The project manager must func-. . tion as an integrator to make the matrix work.

Problem solving and decision making a re critical to the integration pro-cess since most ~ r o j e c t roblems occur at subsystem o r organizationalinterfaces. The project m anager is the only person in the key position tosolve such interface problems. T he project manager provides" . a singlepoint of integrative responsibility, and 2. integrative planning and con-trol" (2). The project manag er is faced with three general types of orob-lems and with the subsequen t necessity for decis ~o nmaking:

1. Administrative problems involving the removal of roadblocks, thesetting of priorities, or the resolution of organizational conflictsin-volving people, res ources , o r facilities.

2 . Technical -problems involving the making of de cisions, and scopechanges; making key trade-offs among cost, schedule, or perfor-mance; and selecting between technical alternatives.

3. Customer or client problems which involve interpretation of andconformance to specifications and regulatory agency documents.

Matrix organizations will not automatically work, and an endless num-ber of things can go wrong. Recognizing that the matrix is a complex01-ganizational form is the first st ep . T he next step is getting this complex

organization to function. Its successful operation, like that of any man-agement function, dep ends alm ost entirely on the actions and activities ofthe various people involved. In a m atrix, how ever, the important actionsand activities are conc entrated at the interfaces between the various orga-nizational units. Th e most important of these interfaces are between thdproject manager and top management, and between the project managerand the functional managers supp orting the project. M oreover, m ost ma-trix problems occur at the interfaces between the project manager andfunctional managers. Project managers must effectively work acrossthese interfaces if they are going to accomplish their integrative function.

Project m anage rs car ry out their function of project integra'tion primarilyby carefully managing all of the many diverse interfaces within their pro-jecis. Archibald indicates that "the basic concept of intetface manage-ment is that th e project ma-nager plans and contro ls (manages) the pointsof interaction between various elem ents of the project, the product, and


7/26

the orga nizations involved" (1). H e defines interface management a s con-sisting of identifying, documenting, scheduling, communicating, andmonitoring interfaces related to both the product and the project (1) .

T he co m plex ity tha t results from th e use of a matrix organization givesthe project manager even more organizational and project interfaces tomanage. These interfaces are a problem for the project manager, sincewhatever obstacles he or she encounters, they are usually the result oftwo organizational units goingin different directions. An old managementcliche says that all the really difficult problems occur at organizationalinterfaces. T h e proble m is comp licated by the fact that the organizationalunits are usually not un der the direct management of the project m anager,and some of the most important interfaces may even be completely out-side of the com pan y o r enterprise.

Types of In ter faces

There are many kinds of project interfaces. Archibald divides them intotw o types-product and-proiect-and then further divides them into sub-groups, of which management interfaces are a major division(2). Theproblem of the overall projectlfunctional interface is thoroughly discussedby Cleland and King, who point out the complementary nature of theproject and th e functional or discipline-oriented organization. "They areinseparable and on e cannot survive without the other"(3).

Another way of describing the various interfaces that the project man-ager must con~inual lymonitor fo r potential problems is (a) personal o rpeople interfaces, (b) organizational interfaces, and (c) system interfaces(2). In oth er w ord s, project management is more than just managementinterfaces; it involves all three of the above fvpes.

Person al Interfaces-These are the "people" interfaces within theorganization w hether th e people a re on the project team o r outsideit. W hen eve r tw o people are w orking on the same project there isapotential for personal problems and evcn for conflict. If the peopleare both within the same line or discipline organization, the project

manager may have very limited authority over them, but he or shecan demand that the line supervision resolve the personal problemo r conflict. If th e people a re not in the same line or discipline organi-zation, the project manager must play the role of mediator, with theultimate alternative of insisting that line management resolve theproblem o r rem ove o ne o r both of the individuals from the projectteam. Personal interface problems become even more troublesomeand difficult to.s olv e when they involve two o r more managers. ,


8/26

2. Organizational Interfaces-Organizational interfaces ar e the mosttroublesome since they involve not only people but also varied orga-nizational goals, and conflicting managerial styles and aspirations.Each organizational unit has .its own objectives, its own disciplinesor specialties, and its own functions. As a result of these differences,each organizational unit has its own jargon, often difficult for othergroups to understand or appreciate. It is thus apparent that misun-derstandings and conflict can easily occur at the interfaces. Theseinterfaces are more than purely management interfaces since muchday-to-day contact is at the working level. Purely management inter-faces exist whenever important management decisions, approvals,or other actions thai will affect the project must be made, Organiza-tional interfaces also involve units outside the immediate company

or project organization such as the customer, subcontractors, orother contractors on the same or related systems.

3. System interfaces-system interfaces are the product-, hardware,facility, construction, or.-other types of nonpeople interfaces inher-ent i n the iGiern being developed or constructed by the project.These will be interfaces between the various subsystems in the pro-ject. The problem is intensified because the various subsystems willusually be developed by different organizational units. As pointedout by Archibald ( I ) , these system interfaces can be actual physicalinterfaces existing between interconnecting parts of the system, or

performance i-nterfaces existing between various subsystems orcomponents of the system. System interfaces may actually be sched-uled milestones involving the transmission of information developedin one task to another task by a specific time, or the completion of asubsystem on schedule.

Management Interfaces

Each of the three types of interfaces that have been described pose impor-tant problems. Problems become particularly troublesome when personal

and orxanizational interfaces are combined into what may best 'be calledmanagement interfaces (17). Management interfaces have personal as--pects because normally two individuals are concerned, such as a projectmanager and a particular functional manager. Management interfaces,however, also have organizational aspects because the respective man-agers lead organizations which probably have conflicting goals and aspira-tions.

There is a great difference between the conventional organization chart(whether it be hierarchical or matrix) and the actual operation of a real-


9/26

world organization. T he-conventional hierarchical organipation cha rts o rmatrix organization charts clearly show many of the management inter-faces, such as superiorlsubordinate and project man agemen tlworker rela-

tionships. However, conventional management charts only suggest someof the other really important interfaces. These important interfaces, asshown by the double-ended ar row s in Figure 3-3, consist of project man-agerlfunctional nlanager interfaces, project managerltop management in-terfaces, functional managerlfunctional manager interfaces, and some-times eve n project manager/project manager interfaces.

Most important are the interfaces between the project managers and thevarious functional nianagers supporting the proj'ect. These relationshipsare almost inevitably adversary since they involve a constantly shiftingbalance of power between tw o manag ers on essentially the sa me reportinglevel.

The interface with top management is important becauseit representsthe project m anager's sourc e of autho rity and responsibility. T he projectma nage r must not only have the real and unqualified s up por t of to p man-agement, but must also have a clear and readily accessible communica-tion link with them. Th e projec t manag er must b e able to get the"'ear" oftop management w henever necessary.

The interfaces between the various functional managers are importantbecau se they ar e the least visible t o project managerswho might not beimmediately aware of trouble spots.

P r n i e c ~ l t o o manaoement interface I. - - - - . - - r -

executive

I IFunctional

manager

II

II

I

Project I Project/functional Imanager interfaces---------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Projectpersonnel

Figure 3-3. The multiple management interfaces in the matrix.


10/26

Th e Balance of Power

Having implenlented project management, top management must recog-nize that they have placed a new player in the management game-theproject manager. Problems are to be expected, particularly in a matrixorganization w her e a new situation has been create d with natural conflicto r adversary I-olesbetween the project ma nagers and the functional m an-agers who support the projects. This managerial relationship can bestbedescribed as a balance of power between the two managers involved asillustrated by Figure 3-4. This relationship has also been described as abalance of interest and a sharing of power(6). But this does not i~ np lyhatthe shared power is ever truly balanced, because in reality the balance ofpower is a dynam ic, constantly changing condition that cannot be staticeven if so desired.

There is no way to assure a balance of power at every managerialinterface. Theoretically, it should be possible to divide the authority andresponsibility more or less equally between the project and functionalmanagers, which implies a very clear balance of power between the twoman agers. This is not only very difficult, but it doesn't happen very often .Various authors have attempted to clearly delineate the authority andresponsibilities of both projec t and functiorial m anagement so as to assu rea balance of power (3). Certainly such a delineation can indicate where

Chiefexecut ive

Fiyre:?d. The balanced matrix.


11/26

major responsibilities lie, but cannot guarantee a balance of power. I nfact, there are many reasons why i t is almost impossible i o have a truebalance of power between functional and project management. Not theleast of these reasons is the fact that a matrix consists of people, and allpeople-including managers-are different from each other . Managershave differing personalities and differing management styles. Some man-agemcnt styles depend on the persuasive abilities of the manager, whileothers depend on or tend to fall back on strong support from top manage-ment.

Since projects, programs, o r products are usually the most important ofall of a company's activities, project managers are very important per-sons. They are the persons who put the company in a position where itcan lose money or make a profit. Therefore, in terms of the balance ofpo\jler, i t \vould seem that projects would always have the scale of powertipped in their direction, particularly with the firm support of top manage-ment. Not necessarily so! In fact, not usually so, at least in a matrixorganization. In a pure project organization, there is no q:.:stion as towho holds the power. But in a matrix organization the fi~nctional man-agers have po\\lerful forces on their side. The functional manager is nor-mally perceived by project personnel to be the real boss. This is inevitablesince functional management is part of the management ladder in thehierarchy wlhich goes directly up to the president of the company, and it istherefore perceived to be "permanent" by the elnployees. After all, thefunctional organization represents the "home base" to which project per-

sonnel expect to return after the completion of the project.Very strong top management support for the project manager is neces-

sary to get the matrix to work, and even very strong support will notguarantee project success. However, the matrix will not work without it.Project managers must get the job done by any means at their disposaleven though they may not be perceived as the real boss.

, The ProjectlFunctional Interface!t The secret of the successfully functioning matrix can thus be seen to be

not just a pure balance of power, but more a function of the interface orinterface relationships between the project and individual functional man-agers. Every project decision,and action must be negotiated across thisinterface. ;This interface is a natural conflict situation since many of 'thegoals and objectives of project and functional management are so very

'different. Depending on the personality and dedication of the respective, t-'managers, this interface relationship can be one of smooth-working coop

eration or bitter conflict. A domineering personality or power play usual1


12/26

is not the answer. The overpowering manager may win the local skirmish,but usually manages sooner or later to alienate everyone working on theproject. Cooperation and negotiation are the Keys to successful decisionmaking across the projectlfunctional interface. Arbitrary and one-sideddecisions by either the project or functional manager can only lead to orintensify the potential for conflict. Unfortunately for project managers,they can accomplish little by themselves, they must depend on the coop-eralion and support of the functional manager. The old definition of suc-cessful management-"getting things done by working throughothersw-is essential for successful project managcment in the matrixorganization.

The most important interface that the project manager has I n a matrixorganization is with the functional managers. The conventional matrixtwo-boss model does not adequately emphasize this most important rela-

tionship. Obviously, neither the project manager nor the functional man-ager can simply sit in his or her office and give orders . The two managersmust be communicating with each other on at least a daily basis, andusually more often. The organizational model shown in Figure 3-4 showsthe managerial relationship as a double-ended arrow indicating that therelationship is a two-way street. Consultation, cooperation, and constantsupport are necessary on the part of both the project and functional man-agers. This is a very important relationship, key to the success of anymatrix organization, and one which must be carefully nurtured and ac-tively promoted by b~tli:'~roject nd functional management.

Strong Versus We a k M a t r i c e s

Achieving an equal balance of power between project and functional man-agement may be a desirable goal; cer!ainly it should be a way of minimiz!ing potential power struggles and possible conflicts. There is no certainway to assure that there is an "equal" balance of power, and it is probablyseldom really achieved. Ilowever, it can be approached by assuming thatthe project managers have the full support of top management and thatthey report at a high enough level in the management hierarchy. In fact

top management can, whenever desirable, tilt the scales of power in eitherdirection.In many situations it may not be desirable to have an equal balance of

power. For instance, a project may be so important to the company, orthe budget and schedule so tight that top management feels that the prg-ject manager must be in a very strong position. Or perhaps the project

_ managers feel lhat they must tilt the organizational balance of power intheir favor to obtain better project performance. On the other hand, top


13/26

managcment may feel that functional rnanngcment needs more backing.In either case, the balance of power can be tilted in either direction bychanging any one or any combination of the following three factors:

I . The Administrative Relationship-The levels at which the projectand involved functional managers report, and the backing whichthey receive from top managcmcnt.

2 . The Physical Relationship-The physical distances between the var-ious people involved in the project.

3. The Time Spent on the Project-The amount of time spent on theproject by the respective managers.

These threc factors can be used to describe \vhether the matrix is strongor weak. The strong matrix is one in which the balance of power isdefinitely on the side of project managcment. This can be shown by themcdel in Figure 3-5. A weak matrix has been described by project man-agers a s one in which the balance of power tilts decisively in the directionof line or functional management.

The managerial alternatives have been described as a continuum rang-ing from pure project to functional as shown in Figure 3-6 (7). The matrixfalls in the middle of the continuum, and can range from very weak tovery strong depending on the relative balance of power.

boss

Project.Personnel

Figure 3-5. The balance of power. n a strong matrix.


14/26

THE INTEGR ATION PROCESS

As previously indicated, project integration doesn't just happen, it mustbe made to happe n. It is more than just fitting com pone nts together; thesystem h as to function a s a whole. T he integration process co nsists of allof the specific actions that project managers must initiare to ensure thattheir projects ar e integrated. In tegration cannot be an afterthought, and itdoes not consist only of actions that can be accomplished after the sub-systems have been completed. Therefore, the critical actions leading tointegration must take place very early in the life cycle of the project,particularly during the implementation phase, to ensure that integration

' takes place. Tn "pure" project organizations the re I S no question as towho initiates these actions, project managers run their own empires.Inmatrix organizations, however, project managers encounter particulardifficulties and problems in carrying out their integrative functions.

THE CRITICAL ACTIONS OF INTEGRATION

The integration pro cess is difficuft to se parate from general good manage-ment pra ctice; ho wev cr, th ere a re a num ber of critical actions which areuniquely impo rtant to the job of project management. These actions m ustbe initiated and contmually monitored by project managers if projectintegration is to occu r. T he project manager isthe single point of integra-tive responsibility, and is the only p erson who can initiate these actions.

Fhese critical actions ar e of two type s:(a) those wh ich are essentially just

Purefunctional

Pureproject

I

Relative balance ofpower or relativeinfluence i n decisionmaking

Weak matr ix I Strong matrixBalance o f

- - . power

Figure 3-6. The balance o f po wer in weak and strong matrices.


15/26

good project management practice and which must extend over the entire; life of the project, and (b) specific one-time actions which*must be taken

by some member of management (usually the project manager or a mem-

ber of top management) to ensure that the project is integrated. The niostimportant of these actions are as follows (22):

1. Getting started on the right foot.2. Planning for project integration.3 . Developing an integrated Work Breakdown Structure, schedule, and'

budget.4. Developing integrated project control.5. Managing conflict.6. Removing roadblocks.7. Setting priorities.8 . Facilitating project transfer.9. Establishing communication links.

Getting Star ted on the Right Foot

To achieve successful project integration, it is of course very importantthat the project get starled on the right foot. Thete are a number ofspecific things that must be done, both by top management and by theproject manager (22). The secret of project success is dependent on mak-ing these critical actions very early in the project life cycle. For the mostpart these actions are inseparable froni the normal actions that must betaken to implement any successful project; however, they must be madeduring the project implemenlation phase. I f the right decisions are madeat this time, the project can be expected to run smoothly and the integra-tion process will proceed as planned.

The most important decisions and resulting actions are those taken bytop management, and many of these actions must be taken \veil before theproject is actually started. Not all of these actions are directly concernedwith the integration function, but they are all necessary for the successful .implementation of project management. The most critical of the actions

which must be taken by top management are the follo\ving:

I . Completely selling the project management concept to the entireorganization.

2. Choosing the type or form of project organization to be utilized.3 . Issuing s charter to completely delineate it11 project and filnc-

tional. authority and responsibilities.4. Choosing the project manager or project managers.


16/26

5. Choosing the right functional managers to participate in the projectandlor matrix organization.

6. Supplying adequate resources to the project organization such asfinances, equipment, personnel, computer support, etc.

i7. Continuing strong support for the project and for the project man-ager.

The above list of actions is more or less in the order that the actions mustbe taken, and most of them must be taken prior to the actual implementa-tion of the project.

After top management has successfully implemented project manage-ment and has given i t full support, the action passes to the newly ap-

Ipointed project managers. There are a number of specific actions that theproject managers must now initiate to start their projects on the road tosuccess, and to ensure project integration. The project manager is the

: single point of integrative responsibility, and is the only person who caninitiate and monitor these actions. The most critical of these actions are asfollows:

1. Issuance of the Project Implementation Plan.2. Creation of the project Work Breakdown Structure (WBS).3. Development of the project organization.4. Issuance of the Project Procedures Guide.5. Issuance of a Project Material Procurement Forecast.6 . Issuance of Work Authorizations.

These actions are more or less sequential, although they are stronglyinterrelated and must be worked on at the same time. The most importantconsidcration is that documentation implementing the above actions beissued as early in the project life cycle as possible. Much of this effortshould have been accon~plished rior to the initiation of the project, suchas during proposal preparation. Even so, a great deal of effort is required -during the "front end" of a project to accomplish these actions, and toensure that project integration takes place.

Planning for Project Integrat ion

Integration doesn't just happen-it must be planned. The project managermust develop a detailed planning document that can be used to get theproject initiated, and to assure that all project participants understandtheir roles and responsibilities in the project organization.

The project manager is the only person in the key position of having an


17/26

ovcrv iew of the en tire project system, preferably fromits inception, andtherefore can best foresee potential interface or other integration prob-Icms. A fter identifying the se key interfaces, the project manager can kee p

a close surveillance on them to catch and correct any integration prob-lems when they first occur. Parlicularly importantin the project plan is aclear delineation of the project requirements for reporting, hardware de-l ivery, con~plet ionof tests, facility construction, and other importantmilestones.

An imporlant part of the project plan should be the integration plan.\This plan is a subset of the project plan and may even be a separatedoc um ent if a single departm ent o r even a separate contractor is responsi-ble for system or project integration. In any case, the integration planshould define and identify all interface eve nts, interrelationships betweentasks and hardware subsystems, and potential interface problems. Theintegration plan should then analyze the interrelationshipsbetween tasksand the scheduled sequence of events in the project.

Project m anage rs m ust continually review and update both the adminis-tration and techn ical p ortions of their project plans to pro\lide for changesin sco pe and direction of their projects. They must assure that budget andresourc e requirem ents ar e continually reviewed and revised so that pro-ject resources are utilized in the most effective manner to produce anintegrated system.

The most complete and well integrated project plan is worthless if noone uses it . On ly th e project manager can ensure that all task m anagersare aware of their roles and responsibilities in the atrainment of projectsuc ces s. Bu t con tinu ous follow-up by the project manager is necessary toassure adherence to the project plan, and awareness of any necessaryrevision.

Deve lop ing an In teg ra ted W ork Breakdown S t ruc tu re ,Schedule , and Budget

Solving the project manager's problems sta rts with the fact that everyproject must b e broke n dow n into subdivisions or tasks which are capable

of accomplishment. Creating this Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) isthe most difficult part of preparing a project plan because the project-man ager must e ns ure that all of the tasksfit togethe r in a mann er that willresult in the development of an integrated workable system. The W B Sca n be consid ered t o be th e "heart" of the project integration effort. T ooofte n a W BS is pre par ed by breaking up the project along easily differenti-ate d organ izationa l lines with very little thought a s to how the final system,fits. together. Ho we ver , the W BS is the system "organization chart"


18/26

which schematically portrays-the producfs (hardware, software, services,and other work tasks) that completely define the system (4). Therefore, itis best to prepare the W BS by breaking down the project first into subsys-

tems and then into components and finally into tasks that can readily beaccomplished. These lower-level tasks or "work packages" can be mosteffectively estimated and carried out if they are within single organiza-tional units.

This process of breaking down a project into tasks or \vork packages,that is', creating a WBS, is just the first step. The W B S must then becarefully integrated with the schedule and budget if the project is to suc-ceed. Each work package must have an integrated cost, scheduled start.and scheduled completion point. The W B S serves as the project frame-work for preparing detailed project plans, ne:ivork schedules, detailedcosting, and job responsibilities. A realistic W B S assures that projectintegration can truly be achieved.

Developing Integ rated Project Control

The most prolific project planning is useless if project control is ineffec-tive. Whatever type of planning and control technique is used, all theimportant interfaces and interface events must be identified. Interfaceevents such as hardware or facility completions will be important projectmilestones. The project network plan must be based on the interfaceevents in order to facilitate analysis of the entire project on an integratedbasis. Resource allocation and reporting periods can then be coordinatedwith interface e-ventq, and schedules and budgets can be designed on anintegrated basis.

Managing Conflict

Project managers have been described as conflict managers (10). Thisdoes not mean that they should constantly be fire fighters; however, theycannot avoid this role in resolving conflicts, particularly when the conflictinvolves project resources such as project personnel. Conflicts are very

'ikely to occur in the temporary project environment where the projectlanager is often the new player whb has not had time to develop good)orking relationships with project team members or with supporting~nctional managers. The conflict potential is also increased by the greatiffcrcnces between project and functional goals. and objectives, and byIe unavoidable competition between projects for resources.

It is inevitable that problems occur at organizational and subsystem --

interfaces. These problems may or may not result in actual open conflict


19/26

between individuals or organizations. A common situation is personalconflict between the two managers involved at an interface. Conflict situa-tions result primarily from the concerned groups o r managers losing sight

of the overall project goals or having differing interpretations of how toget the job accomplished. Project managers must continually be on thelookout for real and potential conflict situations and resolve them immedi-ately if they expect to have an integrated project.

Remo ving Roadblocks

Roadblocks are inevitable whenever there are separate organizationalunits which must support project efforts, particularly if the projects arematrixcd. Roadblocks are inevitable in such a complex organization, andare the inevitable result of conflict situations. Resolving the conflict willeliminate many roadblocks, but there are always other roadblocks set upintentionally or unintentionally by managers and other: personnel not di-rectly involved with the project. These roadblocks may be the result ofconflicting needs for resources and personnel, or conflicting priorities forthe use of facilit ies and equipment. Administrative roadblocks often occurbecause managers outside the project do not understand or sympathizewith the project urgency. Such roadblocks are difficult to deal with, andthe project manager may be forced to go to top management to get asatisfactory resolution.

Setting Priorities

In order to resolve or prevent conflict situations, the project manager iscontinually faced with the problem of setting priorities. There are twotypes of priorities that are of major concern to project managers:

1. The overall company- or organizational priorities which relate pro-ject needs to the needs of other projects within the organization, andto overall organizational needs.

2. The priorities within projects for the utilization of personnel, equip-

ment, and facilities.

T h e first type of priority may be beyond the control of project managers,but it is a problem with which they must be continually concerned. Pitythe poor project manager who is so busy getting the job done that he orshe forgets to cement a working and. personal relationship with membersof top management. The result may be a low project priority that doomsthe project to failure. The second type of priority is within the project


20/26

organization and therefore completely within the control of the projectmanager. Th es e priority problems must be handled ona day-to-day basis.but in a manner that will promote the integration of the project system.

Facilitating P roject Transfer

Project transfer is th e movement of a project througn the co mp any organi-zations from th e conceptual phase t o final delivcry t o the custom er. Pro-ject transfer doesn't just happen, it must be carefully planned and pro-vided for in the scheduling and budgeting of the project. The projectmanager has the tesponsibility of ensuring that project transfer takesplace without wasteful effort and on schedule. The steps in a typicalproject transfer are shown in Figure3-7.

If the product o r system is to be delivered tot he custom er on schedule,it must move from block to block as indicated in Figure 3-7, which in-volves crossing a number of organizational interfaces. This transfer pro-ces s must be expedited o r even forced by the project ma nagerif it is to becompleted on schedule. The basic problem is that of making certain thatthe project is transferred qu ickly, without organizational conflict, withoutunnecessary redesign or rework, and without loss of relevant technologyor other information. Experience has shown that the best method of en-suring effective project tra nsfer is to utilize people who can mo ve with th eproject across organizational interfaces. The project manager has twoalternatives to facilitate project transfer: (a) the designation of suitablequalified personnel who can move forward with the project, that is,change their role a s indicated by the left to right dashed arr ow s in Figure3-7, (b) the utilization of personnel w ho can m ove backw ard in the organi-zation and se rve as consultants o r active working members of the projectteam. When the project moves forward they serve as transfer agents inmoving the project forward in the organization(22). Various possiblepersonnel transfers ar e show n by the right to left solid arro w s in Figure 3-

Transfer agents

r 1I

It t t - tResearch or Design Manufacturingconceptual and Test or customer

phase development construction1I L - -- J L,,,,J 4

L,,,,,,,,,,------

Role change

Figure 3-7. Project transfer.


21/26

7. Great importance must be placed on havirrg customer, manufacturing,andlor construction representatives take part in the deggn phase of theproject.

Establishing Communication Links

The last of the integration actions, that of constantly maintaining com-munication links, is perhaps the most difficult and troublesome because i t 'involves the necessity for considerable "people" skills on the part ofproject managers. Most project managers find that they spend at least halfof their time talking to people-getting information, delegating, clarifyingdirect ives, and resolving conflicts and misunderstandings. Much of thistime is involved with project managers' critical responsibiiities for main-

taining all con~munication inks within and o ~ l ~ s i d e heir projects in orderto ensure project integration. Internal communication links must be main-tained between each subdivision of the project, and the project managersmust make sure that all project team members talk with each other. Inaddition, the-project manager is personally responsible for maintainingcommunication linkages outside of the project. Many of the external com-munication links can be personally expedited by the project manager, andin most cases the communication consists of written documents.

Communication linkages internal to the project, however, must func-tion continuously, with or without documentation, and whether the pro-

ject manager is personally involved o r not. These internal communicationlinkages are most important to the health of the project since they involvethe technical integration of the subsystems of the product or project.However, there a re usually very real barriers to effective communicationsacross any two such subsysteln interfaces. In order to assure that prob-lems don't accumulate and build up at these interfaces, the project man-ager must act as a transfer agent or a communications expediter. Themodel shown in Figure 3-8 illustrates the interrace problem.

The project manager must serve as the bridge to make sure that thecommunication barriers do not occur. Communication barriers can be

caused by a variety of circumstances and occurrences which the projectmanager must watch for. A communication barrier may or may not resultin actual conflict depending upon t he individuals involved, but the possi-bility always exists.

The project manager is the one person always in a position to expeditecommunication linkages. He or she can be considered to be a transferagent who expedi tes the completion of the communication link by person-ally transferring information and project requirements across the inter-face. Considering the number of interfaces in a complex, multidisciplinary


22/26

Projectmanager

~ t t e nu a t io n r ~ornrnunica t ion inks -barrier to information andcommunication coordination

Figure 3-8. Th e project manager as communications expediter.

matrix-organized project, this process becomes a major effort for theproject manaacr. The only saving grace is that many of these interfacesu.ill be trouble free, and communication problems will not all occur at thesame time.

Commllnication barriers may be caused by a variety of circumstancesand occurrences. Some of the causes of communica1ion barriers are asfollows (19, 21):

1 . Differing perceptions as to the goals and objectives of the overallcompany or organizational system can cause problems. In addition,a lack of understanding of project objectives is one of the mostfrequent and troublesome causes of misunderstanding. It can bedirectly attributed to insufficient action on the part of the projectmanager, since he or she has the major responsibility for definingproject objectives. Even when these objectives are clearly stated bythe project manager, they may be perceived differently by variousproject team members.

2. Differing perceptions of the scope and goals of the individual subsys-tem organizations can likewise restrict communications. Again it isthe responsibility of the project managers to clarify these problems,at least as to how they impact their projects.

3. Competition for facilities, equipment, materials, manpower, andother resources can not only clog communication routes but can alsolead to conflict.

4. Personal antagonisms or actual personality conflicts between man-agers and/or other personnel will block communication flow. Theremay also be antagonism toward project managers by line managerswho perceive them as a threat to their authority or-their empire.


23/26

5. Resistance to change or the NIH (not invented here) attitude mayalso detrimentally affect communication links between organiza-tional units.

As indicated in Figure 3-9, the project manager has four important com-munication links: (a ) upward to top management, (b)downward to thepeople working on the project, (c) outward to line managers and otherprojects at the same managerial level, and (d) outward to the customer orclient. The project manager has a major responsibility for maintainingcommunications with the chief executives in the organization who mustbe provided with timely, up-to-date progress reports on the technical andfinancial status of the project. Similar reports must be provided to theclient o r customer, particularly if the customer is outside of the company,

such as a governmental agency.The other important communication link is with the people working ont h e project. The project manager must keep them informed by means ofproject directives and personal communications. In addition, there is acontinual s tream of reports from the disciplinenine-organization managersand specialists who are working on the project.

Many of these reports concern project and administrative details andcan be evaluated by administrators and assistant project managers. How-

management I

I Personn el assignedto project I

J A

Figure 3-9. The project manager's communication links.

/I

/Company

/ policy//

I/

\\

Progress \reports \ \

\\

\

J

Linemanagers,

otherprojects Reports

'f\

\\ Reports

\\

///

Project /directives /

//

tI 1


24/26

ever , the ultimate decision as to the worth of a report, and as to whether itshould be included in progress reports to the customer andlor top manage-ment , is in the harids of the project manager. His or her communicative

skills, therefore, must include the ability to accurately and rapidly evalu- Iate, condense, and act on information from many sources.

Attenuation in these communication links at the organizational inter-faces must be minimized. This means that project managers must have anopen line to top management. Conversely, they cannot have too manyline managers interpreting their instructions and project objectives to thepeople working on the project. Without open con~rriunication inks, pro-ject managers will surely fail. There are also a number of important com-munication links outside the immediate scope of the project. The fourmost important such links are shown by the dashed arrows in Figure 3-9.

For instance, the customer will at times talk directly to top managementwithout going through the project manager. Project managers have torecognize the existence and the necessity for these sometimes bother-some communication links; and rather than fight them, they should en-deavor to make use of them.

C O N C L U S I O N S

Project integration consists of ensuring that ihe pieces of the project cometogether as a "whole" at the right time and that the project functions as anintegrated unit according to plan. In other words, the project must betreated as a system. Project managers carry out their job of project inte-gration in spite of project and system complexity, and of course their jobis the most difficult in a matrix organization.

To accomplish the integration process, project managers must take anumber of positive actions to ensure that integration takes place. Themost important of these actions is that of maintaining communicationlinks across the organizational interfaces and betwcen all members of theproject team. Project managers must be continually expediting communi-cation links throughout their projects. Of almost equal importance is theneed for the project manager to develop a Work Breakdo~vn Structure.

which ensures project integration by providing a "frame\vork" on whichto build the total project . These integrative actions are every bit as impor- . ,-tant as the project manager's other principal function of acting as a cata- '*

' lyst to motivate the project team.'

Project integration is just another way of saying interface management :since i t involves continually monitoring and controlling (i.e., managing) alarge number of project interfaces. The number of interfaces can increaseexponentially as the numbcr of organizational units increases; and the life


25/26

of a project manager in a matrix organization can become very complexindeed. Interfaces usually involve a balance of power between the twom a na ge rs i ~ ~ v o l v e d .his balan ce of pow er can be tilted in favor of eitherma nag er, de pendin g or;' the de sire s of top man ageme nt. Project managersmu st continually keep . their ey es on the various managerial interfacesaffecting their projects. They must take prompt action to ensure thatpo we r struggles don't degenerate into actual conflict. It takes very little,foot dragging to sabotage even the best project. Integration doesn't just':automatically occur. The project manager must put forth great effortto

- ensure that i t happens.

REFERENCES

1 . Archibald, Russell D.h4~11rrrgitrg igh-Teclrttology P rogrants un dP roj cc ts (Wiley. New

York, 1977). p. 66.2. Ibid., p. 5.3. Clela nd, David I. and King, \Yilliam R. Systcnis Analysis an d Projcc t Afnttrrger~tent, 2nd

Ed. (McGraw-Hill . New York, 1979,p. 237.4. Ibid., p . 343.5. Davis. Stanley M. and Lawrcnce, Paul R.Alntrir. (Addison-Wesley. Reading, Mass.,

1977).6. Davis, Stanley M. "Two Models of Organization: Unity of Comm and versus Balanceof

Power." Slorrtt .4fanngrment Rcuietcj (Fall, 1974),pp. 29-40.7. Galbraith, Ja y R. "Xlatrix Organ ization Design."Business Horizons (February, 1971),

pp . 29-40.8. Galbraith. Ja y R. Designing Com plex 0rga11i:ations (Addison-Wesley. Reading, Mass.,

1973).9. Galbraith, Jay R. Organization Design (Addison-Wesley. Reading, Mass., 1977).

10. Kerl ner , Harold. Project Management: A Systems Approach to Plunning, Schedrrlingcrtid Controlling (Van Nostrand Reinhold. New York, 1979),p. 247.

I 1 . Koo ntz, JIarold and O'Donnell, Cyril.Princ iples of Afunapcmcrrt: A n Analys is of A lun-ugr r i a l F~r t t c r io t~sMcGraw-Hill. New York, 1972).p. 46.

12. Ibid., p . 50.13. 1-awrence, Paul R. and Lorsch, JayW . Orgntrizofion crtrd E~tvirortmcnt: A4anagitrg

Dif/ercntirrtion und Jnteprntiorr (Harvard University, Division of Research, GraduateSchool of Businrss Administration. Boston, 1967).

14. Lawrence, Paul R. and Lorsch, Jay W. "New Management Job: The Integrator."Ifurvurd Brr.\inrss Revielcl (November-December, 1967),pp . 142- 151.

IS. 1-awrcnce, Paul R. and Lorsch , Jay W. Dcvrloping Orgcrtrizntions: Diagnosis anaAction (Addison-Wesley. Reading, Mass., 1969).

16. Lor sch, Jay W . and Morse, John J. Orgartizc ~tiotrs rnd Tlteir Alcntbers: A ConritrgencyApprooch (Harper & Row. New York, 1974),pp . 79-80.

17. Morris, Peter W. G. "Man aging Froject Interfaces-Key Points for Project Success,"Chapter I in Project A 4crtt~get~1etttj rndbook , ed. C leland, David L. and King, WilliamR. (Van Nostrand Reinhold. New York, 1st Ed. 1983),pp . 3-36.

18. Say les, Leonard R. "hlatrix Man agem ent: The Structure with a Future."Organiza-tionrrl Dytt ut~tic s Autum n, 1976),pp. 2-17.


26/26

19. Stickney, Frank A. and Johnso n, William R. "Communication: The K eyI : i . . . .:&-lion." 1980 Proceedings oftlie Project Alnnaget,rent Invritrite Annrtal Set~ iirii7rlSyt~ipo-sirim, Phoenix, Ariz. (project Management Institute. Drexel Hill, Pa,,- 1989 ,. pp,,l-A.1-13. t

20. Stuckenbruck, LinnC. "Project Manager-The Syst ems Integratog."Pr oj ~c r 11r~tiugc-nletl t Qriorterl~~September, 1978), pp. 31-38. ... . . & -21. Stuck enbru ck, Linn C. "The Integration Function in the Matrix."1979 Procrrditigs of

rlte Project Mnnngcrnent Institrite Art~rrtal S~r~iinrirlSyniposirrm, tlanta, G a. (ProjectManagement Inslitute. Drexel Hill, Pa., 1979).pp. 481-492.

22. Stuckenbruck, LinnC. Tlie Iniplemen~otiotr of Project A fnnage men t: Tlrc ProfcssiotinlsI landbook (Addison-W esley. Reading, Mass., 1981), Cha pter6.

23. Stuckenbruck, Linn C. "Inte rface M anagement-Or Making Th e Matrix \Irork," inAfntrix Manogemetit Sysrenrs Hatidbook, ed. Cleland, David 1. (Van Nostrand

- Reinhold. New York. 1984). pp. 330-343. .=

Documents

Integration-The Essential Functin of Project Management