Tec h n o 1 o g y ~ bas e d p ro J G cis i n m U 1 ti II ai I o n a I e n \I I r o n m e n t s

and

rganizations that manage projects across international borders often find it frustrat- ingly difficult to implement their well- thought-out plans. For these multinational projects also need to be unified among

different business processes, management styles, operational support systems and organizational cul- tures. Such cross-cultural management practices are quite common in today’s global business environ- ment with multinational outsourcing, joint ventures and alliances.

While unified project direction toward technolo- gy transfer, integration, and business objectives usu- ally comes from one central location, they need to be effectively communicated and “managed” across international lines and organizational cultures. Man- agers have to deal with differences in languages, time zones, organizational and personal cultures, policies, regulations, business processes and politi- cal climates.

Yet another managerial challenge is the complex- ity of today’s projects and their support environ- ments. Technology has become a significant factor for almost every business. It affects project activities from small to large businesses and from private industry to government and aerospace. When describing their operations, whether product, process or service-oriented, managers point to specific indi- cators of project complexity. They mention high lev- els of innovation and creativity, technology transfers well integrated with the business processes, multi- disciplinary teamwork and decision making, com- plex support systems such as computer-aided design (CAD), c o In p u t e r - aid e d manufacturing (CAM), enterprise resource planning (ERP) and design for manufacture and assembly (DFM/A).

In addition, today’s projects and their integration rely to a considerable extent on member-generated performance norms and evaluations, rather than hierarchical guidelines, policies and procedures. As a result, self-directed teams are gradually replacing traditional, more hierarchically structured project teams. This paradigm shift is the result of changing

organizational complexities, demands and cultures. As a result, traditional management tools, designed largely for top-down control and centralized com- mand and communications, are no longer effective.

All these challenges are areas of major concern to managers in project-oriented business environments. They also represent the critical functions that deter- mine success or failure in our complex markets.

Conditions to project performance Over a period of five years, we have examined

over 80 factors that were suggested by managers as critical to high project performance. The factors that correlated strongest were grouped into eight “class- es” of conditions. They seemed to have a strongly favorable influence on project performance. Further- more, these eight classes of factors seem to have a favorable impact on a number of conditions coin- monly recognized as desirable for high project per- formance. These include effect ive teamwork, multifunctional support, innovation, quality, person- al enthusiasm and commitment. We have labeled these eight sets of measures, which are critical to project success, managerial conditioning practices (MCPs). They are briefly defined in Table 1.

While we recognize that there are possibly many other measures, the eight sets of measures grouped into MCPs seem to have the greatest influence on project performance. They also have the greatest impact on success in all project situations and in all countries that we studied. They were also sustained over multiyear periods and over a large spectrum of different projects and host companies. We also sus- pect that the organizational environment might have a considerable influence on the managerial condi- tioning practices. Thus, certain managerial practices may be seen as more important in one company than another. This is especially evident for those projects that are jointly managed across international lines and show considerable differences in infrastructure, organizational and personal culture. Therefore, man- agerial practices that are effective in one organiza- tion may not be effective in another.

APRIUMAY 2000

Method I M a \vcrc collccccd bctweeti 1903 aiid 1996 I'roim

125 R r a d i n r i iiiitl 95 1J.S. project Icadcrs, their teiiin incmhcrs, arid siipcriors who sharcci rlieir expcri- c i i ccs of ~ i~ i~ i ; \ g i i i g riiultinatir)iial projects. 'I'licsc tcuiis consisted riiostly of tcchiiicnl persniincl, such as engineers, scientists iinrl lccliniciaris, invrhvcd io iecl~nology-r)~iclitcrl project work such i is ncw prod- iict devclopiricrits, 126r13 m r l lkld servicc: pi'ojccts.

Thesc tcairis were crnploycrl in I;irgc lccli~iology- bared i ~ ~ u l ~ i i i ~ ~ t i o n ; ~ l cciiiipiinies froin thc FO/~!I~IW 1000 calcgnry. Togcthcr, 1he (hta covc~.cd 220 pro- jccls with huclgcts nvernging $752000 (US) wilh thc avcmge (hri!li{>il being 12.1 ~honths. I h t a WCIY col- lcc~cd using cliicsliori i~ i res, parti cipnnt otiscn atioti iitiil in-depth rccrospective i iitcrvicws.

Thc quesl i r i i i~ ia i i .e WLS cbsigrictl to t nc i i sw tlic pcrceivetl: I ) i inpoi~ar ice ;ind 2) efl'ectiveiicss ol' each of the eight classcs of MCIPs. Mnnagcrs WCI'I: asked t.o ctiar;icrcrize their rriaiingemciit S L Y IC mid work cnviroiniicrit by judgiiig each stiitcmciit (MCL') as to: I ) thc iinportancc rii ' Llic riian;igcmciit prnctice to their pcri'orinnticc iund 2) the effectivciicss of thc tiiiinagcirierit practicc ~ i s c d . Both, thc it iqmtatice and

effeectivcncss were meacurcd IH~ a five-puinl 1,ikett- type S C ; I ~ C : 1 ) sirong tlisagrcciiicril; 2) disagrcciiiciit; 3) neutr;ii (ii' sonic :igreeinciit; 4) agreement; iiiirl 5 ) srtong rigrccinctit.

Results Thc rcxporises show h a t on nveragc bo th Bmzil-

iui and U S 1ii;iiiagcrs sec all conrlitirriiiiig practices as important and cl'lcctive (see 'Ihhlc 2). However, h'i1dition;il iniiii agcri al Ibnctioii S, such a s Icadership (MCP- l), wurk dcsign (MCI'-2), inaiiagement s a p p I t (MC1'-3), ulr l coinintltiiciiticrn.; (MC1'-4), U'CI'C

pcrccived :is m u r e iinportniit and iiiorc cl'kctively pr:iciiccrl iliati coritcinpui'niy functionx, such as work challcngc (MC13-5j, ~~crsoiinl drive i i i i d inoiivation ( M C:P-6), i n i n iinu 111 th rcul and corif I ict (MC P-7), and ~ ~ c r s i ~ i ~ ~ l appraisals a i i d awnrds (MCP-Xj. This is particulaidy tt'iic in the ciiw ol Braziliim scnioi. man- agers ; u n d pinjcc.t leatlers. In Iwojcct-oricnlcd work en vi roniiictits, nianagcrs sccrii to feel t h a t cxlri tis ic iuot i vntiori v ia r)rgari izntional iiifrastruclu rc must hc ~ I I > v itlcd fi r st hciorc inore i i t r i ns ic I ri n t iva t ion and i ii f l tic iic.es can hc c f fec t ive iuit l hci ic I'i c i ;i 1 tow a r d Imject p c rrori niiiicc.

i Crlilcal functions (Managerial Conditioning Practices (MCP))

.. . I

1 1) Leadership

!

2) Work design and delegation

I 3) Management support

I 4

i il) Communications

I .. I- 1 5) Work challenge

I

I ..

I 1 6) Persomi drlve i and motlvatlon I ! ,

7) Minimum threats : and confllct

I 8 ) Personal appraisals .. ~~

Description

Effective direction and leadership may be required at all lev& of the project organization throughout the project tife cycle. This includes project definition, organization, task integra- tion, group decision making, problem identification, and search for technical solutions and conflict resolutions.

Thc rnles, responsibilitios, expectations and ovaluations must bo clearly defined at the bagin- ning. Similar to the indoctrination of a new employee to a company, a new project t e m member must bo "signed-on." This should include a otie-on-ono~discussio~ with tho project leader regarding the specific assignment. its overall objectives, timing, budgets, interfaces, the specific role of the new member within the total project team and tho type of performance evaluation to be expected.

Visible upper innnagement involvemont and supporl to tho project team, including the com- mitment to agreed-on resources, is often important to maintain team focus, motivation and commiimont to desired project results.

Successful project teamwork may require effective communications among team members and with project support organizations. Such communications Involve many forms of oral, written, and data-based transfer of infc~rmation, via a groat variety of channels, both formal and informal in nature.

In spite of rigid project plans with predefined objectives, scopes, and resources, projoct lead or$ often have the flnxibility to accommodate the professional interests and desiros of sup- port personnol when negotiating and assigning individual tasks.

. . . . . . . .

. . - .

Projoct managers can influonce the climate of the work environment by their own actions. Concern lor projcct team members, and the ability to integrate personal goals and needs with the project objectives, can stlmulate personal enthusiasm and a climaie high in motiva- tion, work involvement, open communications and ultimately high project perlormance.

Project leaders must foster a work onvironment that is IOW on personal conflict power strug gles, surprises and unrealistic demartds. Risk taking should be encouraged tn some degrco. and failures of well-inlentioned efforts require special managerial supporl. An atmosphere of mutual trust and respect is necessary for project personnel to communicato prnblems and concerns candidly early in their developments.

Project team members shoutd be clear on how andby whom their professional perfor- mances are being measured, and in what form it aifects their organizational rewards. . . .... .. ..

lEEE POTENTIALS

. .

Importance to successful project managment as seen by Crltlcal functlons

: (Managerlal Condltloning Senior mana ers Project leaders U!h ; Brazil USA

4.72 4.65 ~ 4.68 4.41

i Practices (MCP))

: 1) Leadership

i 2) Work design & detegation I 4.63 4.25 I 4.65 4,21

i 3) Management support ~ 4.68 3.88 I 4.54 4.21

I 4) Communications 1 4.50 4.38 I 4.53 4.57

I

I 5) Work challenge ~ 4.28 3.50 I 4.28 3.80

I 6) Personal drive, motivation ~ 4.35 4.45 4.15 4.40

7) Minimum threats, conflict ~ 4.21 3.05 : 4.22 4.03

8) Personal appraisals ~ 4.18 3.72 i 4 . t8 3.32 I & awards ~

. . 1 : Effectiveness of use in project

management as seen by Senior managers I Project leaders Brazil USA ~ Brazil USA : 3.85 3.55 ~ 3.75 4.22

3.88 3.32 ~ 3-78 4.07

3.65 4.15 ~ 3.25 3.02

4.23

3.33 ~ 3.45 3.22

3.58

3.40

1

,

3.41 ~ 3.65 i ,

3.58 4.05 ~ 3.56 4.39 3

2.80 3.22 I 2.80 2.51

I

3.45 2.38 3.25 2.27

. .

struggle, and trust) were licrccivcrl a t a Iiiglict lcycl trT impi)I tancc by project lciidcrs, whilc MCKX (pcrsoiial appraisals iititl ;iwnrds) was SCCII ;IS lowcr in iniport;iiicc by the lmjcct Ic~idcr~s ~ l ~ n hy I l i c i r SCH ior tiiiiiiiigers.

2 ) I~’cctivi‘ricss oJ mrirrrrXcriml c m r i d i r i m r i i r t f i : Senior mnii:igers and pi.o,jcc~ lcadcr~s i i i H r w i I ;igIcc ZigiiiIi relativcly doscly IHI all MCPs, wit l i LIic cxccp- tioii of ~ i ~ i \ ~ i i i g c ~ i ~ c ~ i t support (MCIP-31, wliicli w i i s coiisirlcretl lower for project Icndcrs thiiri l o r h e i r sciiioi. mnii~igc.rs. I o thc US t l a l ; ~ , tiiI’l’crcnccs lictwecn tlic two iiiniiagei~ial Et-oiips arc cvcti inorc 1m)iioiincctl.

l~unctioiis mostly uiidcr the cniitrol ni‘ scriior tiintingcrs, siicli a s in;iti;igcincnt support (MCP-3) iintl personal appr;iisnls and ;iwarrls (MCI’-8) wcrc perceived its inore cl’fcctivcly pi ’wl iccd hy sciiior ma1i;igct.s t1i;iii by project Icarlcrs. Fuiictiotis uiidcr ttic control of project le:itlcr,x, such :is 1)rojcct Icatlcr- ship (MCP- I), work rlcsigri :iiid dclcgatioii (MC1’-2), ;incl cumriiurricatioris (MCP-4), wcrc sccii ai ;I h i g h lcvcl of cffcctiveticss by pr.o,jcct Icntlcr~s.

Whilc the diffcrcnccs in US c i i v i r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ t s could hc cxplaiiicrl via itt.trihotioti biascs, this docs i i o l

cxplain l:he Iiick cif siicli differc.ticcs : I O I O I I ~ U i w i liari riiniiagc~.~. Tti i s cod LI Iiavc sign il’i ciiii t i iiipl i c i i t i oiis for multi i intionnl I ~rojcci I iiiiriagciiicnt , Yet, i II x p i tc rif ttic spccific rliffercnccs, soiiic Iwiiiciplc ;tgrrcincrit exists betwccn the two gru~ips o f scnior in;in;gers and projcct Icatlcrs.

l’licrc ilrc soinc interesting differences i i i iiiiiiiigc- r ia l tliougtit ;\tit1 practice bctwcen ttic two coiiii lrics w i t h implicatirm for niulti iititiooii 1 project IIM I I ;igc- IIICIIL. First, us ciiii bc sccn from thc h t : i in l’nblc 2, the m;inageri;tl perccption o l MCP iiiipiirliiricc ;tiid cffectivencss varies over ;I witlcr I-niigc i n thc IJiiitcd States th;iii in I 3 r m i l . ‘l’liis iudicntcs n lcsv LiIiiI‘oriii agrccmcnt itiiiong 1IS MI nogcrs across thc spcclruii i i l l: managerial pr;icticcs. Second, the g;il, lrclwccii perceivcrl inipo1mricc itrl(l a c l w l MC:I’ priiciice is witlcr i t ) nrxzil than i t i tlic 1Jnilctl Slatcs. ‘I’hc signif-

A PRI UMAY 2000

iciiiicc 0 1 these findings is in the iircii ol' tnultination;tl projccl operations. 'I'lic tlilfeIences o l MCP cft'ectivcncss ratings rimoiig inaiiiigers suggest tliffcrclrccs i i i iniiii agci.inl cultwcs, v;tlucs, nticl opcrati imnl policies,

Implications I i ~ ~ I cacli MCI', wc rlcl'i i lctl perfirrmiuicc L'actor :is the r i h o of pcrceivctl

efkcli VCIICSS tu pcrccivcd iinportaiicc. This ratio iivlicatel: how cf'fccthi: eiich critical riiiictioii is IiiiIniigCd relative t r i its iriigortmicc. A ratici bclow I .O i d - ciitcs a polcntinlly uii I'iivorable situat.iuii. Tlic sinallcr this ralio, ~ h c lcss cCl%c- tive is i i priicular inanagcrial practicc uscd within the orgaiiixilioi), relat.ivc t o its iaiyrortnncc. 'I'ahlc 3 siitiitniirims tlicsc rarios ;IF pcrror~riaiice fiictrirs. Chi :ivcriigc, kaz i l ix i pcrfclriiiaricc fiicturs illc lower than U.S. I'aclors. 'I'his could indicate llinl Rr;iziliiiil iniiiingers, oii avcrage n i id rclativc to heir L1.S. co l - Icagtics, see themsclvcs ns sorncwiiat lcss c f h t i v c i i i ciriirlitiuriirig thcir tcaiiis ant1 woi-h ctivirotiiiieii(s. Or, they scc lhc irnportaiice r r f h i s cnrirlitioriirig iit a higher Icvcl, or I ~ r w i l i i i ~ i ninnngerl: iiIc j u s l more critical a i d conserva(ivc iii

iwcssirig thew i11iii1iigcl.inl practices anrl (Iicir effcctivcncss. Wliilc the reiisims coulcl be iliflcrciiccs iii i)i;itiaguiiil slylc, tc;ini cliaraclcr-

istics aiid work cnvironii~ciit, tlicsc iiiiplication c iiinporlaiit for iniilliiiaticm a1 tcaiii buildirig. 'I'hc litirlings suggcs~ that dil'fereiicc.; in cultural iinpcdaiiccs bctwccu project tcains scpauiteri hy iiatiorial bortlcrs iniglit i i y m t tlic cl'kc- tivencss of miitiagerial lcadcrship stylc Iroin otie teiiiii to anolher or kim one cenlral coiitrol officc ((1 n local teiitii. This would siiggcsl I ~ H I "1uc;d" Icarlcix lire iiiorc cffcctive in inanaging the local ~carii, rather tliiiii iii LiiiiCying projccr tciiinx ai-large m o s s inlcriiatioiial bouiitisks.

'I'hc data fiirtticr show a sigiiificmt gap between senior iiianngers and pro- jcct Ic;itlcIs io U.S. prcijcci covirorrinciits. Ilowever, Iiriwiiiaii scriior man- agcrs iUid prqjcct lcadcrs arc it1 rcluLivcly strong agrcciiicnt. Each gI(iup Iius the mas( hvoritblc pcrccptioti of pracliccs h c y control tiut a lcss f;woi-;ihlc pcrccp'ioii of priicticcl; controlled hy thc other group,

Specifically, thc U.S. projcct Iciidcrs show firvorablc I'nctors im: I) project leadership; 2) work d e k p a i i l delegation; 3) project coiniiiuiiicntions iiiid motiw(ioiinl practices. 1JS senior m;uisgcrs score lowcr on thcse ratios. On the utlicr Iinnd, priicticcs rclntctl to: 1) nxiiiagcmerit SUJIIWI; 2) conflict reso- lutions; sild 3) pcrsi~~iticl appraisals anrl rcwartls lil>pciir I I~I I I 'C Csvor.al,lc 1'01-

scniur inauagers in coinpalison to project Icadcrs. Wlia~ wc c:in glcan I'rom the analysis is some insigh1 i i i t i i \lie divcrsc i i i i in-

;igcrial thoughts :tincl possibly divcrw Icnderdiip styles or culttiriilly dil'fcrciii regirmc. This explaiiis, iii part, the rlirricullics project inanagcrs' expcriciicc iri trying l o cstrlblish ii coiiirnoii prnjcct inwringeinent prr~ccss nntl iiii uiiil'icrl limicwork of dircctioii nnd Ic;idcl-ship io a inu1tiri;itioiial cnvironiricni.

Lessons learned For rtiany cninpnriies, r lehing and implemciiting an effectivc proccss for

in;magiiig iniiltinat.ional projects atiiounts 10 iiinnaging org;iiiizatiorial cliangc. Thus, m c grcnt chnllcngc is (0 aclnpt crmlinuously chmging iiintir?geincnt tcchiiiqucs to local c til liires a nil o rgtiiii z a ~ ioiial val ucs w i I ~ O L I t loos i ing cr mi s- tcncy, purpose ;mtl Inaiingerial intcgriry.

Ycl Troiii a diffcrcnt organixaticrnal lxrspcctive, succcss~Ul i i in l t i t i ; i t i r i i ia l pwjcct iriii~iageinenl l ias to involvc tlic abi l i ty to huilrl a unifictl iiimagwial proccss for effectivc Lcchnology triiiisIbr nntl integr;t~ioii. Such a prriccss inust havc ciiougli llexihility tci adapt to h c a l Icatlcrsliip wliilc fiinciioriirig consis- tcritly williiii est;tblishcd orgatiizatiori;il iioi'iiis n n d ciilttircs. The rcitl chal- leiigc l i cs i r i getting tlic organization to rccogriize their sigi1il'ic:lrit iinpiict nii

b ~ h i IICL;S pcr fo In~ iicc and (o i nvcst r e s i w c c s rei, a ptiirii zi in: h c inn1 t in iitii)1lill

h i i s i i i w s process. IIowevcr, buildirig such inuili-tier procwscs rcqLiircs i i i i irc h a i l sitnply

cnipoweiirig pcoplc nt the local Icvcl. Senior iiiiunagciriciit rieetls io woi'k with their cirganizatioos to build slroiig litikagcs Ixtwceri thc liical project. teanis, their s r i p l x i r ~ systems, iuid (lit ovcrnll projccl ocgoniznticiii and its leiitlcrship. Tliesc pariiicrsliips arc iniirc rfiiilily achievcrl wlic~i niniingcrs in all urganixa- tioris SCIISC a strong tlcgrcc (11' cros~-orgaiiizaticliinl depeuciency.

Tliis rcqtiircs ;in iiiirlcrstnriilirig oI' ~lic rccliiiical and tlic iiimagerixl clial-

IEEE POTENTIALS

APRILIMAY 2000

, . . .. .. . 1 i 3)Managementsupport ~ .75

I 4) Communications .82

.79 i 5) Work chaltenge

i G ) Personal driva, ' moiivation

j 7) Minimum threats, conflict -79

; 8) Personal appraisals '; .67 I &awards

I . I

I

! ~1 1 .53 I .

- . . .

I I . . . . . . - . . ..

Those highly cultured pre-teen years

Forget kindergarten, you probably actually learned eveiything you need to know in junior high. Okay. Kindergarten was a heavy-duty learning experience in corporate subterfuge. Even though thoy swore they weren't doing it, you were being comparedigradad and awarded according to "company" expectations and co-workers' abilities. And deep down, you knew it.

However, those junior highlmiddle school years have probably impacted on your outlook tho inost regarding the corporate world. II was then that you probably made a conscious decision about your rote as a team player. Would you be a joiner or a loner? And even as a loner. would you join othor loners or be a true isolationist? Yoti also probably mentally accepted or fought the pigeonholes others placed on you. These critical decisions were made consciously and subconsciously in reaction to others and situations around you. As you came into your awn, how you would react to a company's culture was also taking shape.

Joan Miller (1982, 1984) researched how individuals acquire various cultural leanings. She used American and Hindu children (ages eight, eleven and fifteen) aiid adults in Chicago, United States and Mysora, India. They were asked to explain everyday deviant and pro-social behaviors. Little difference was observed among the youngest Amori- can or Hindu informants. As they grew older, however, more clear-cut cliffsrencss gradually emerged. Americans gave increasing weight to personality traits to describe an individual's actions in a given scenario. In contrast, Hindus placed greater weight to surrounding factors to sxplain a person's behavior in a particular situation.

As a result, the traditional Hindu moral code is duty-based and focused on social roles. The American moral code is rights-based and focused on individuals. According to Ronald Dworkin (1 977), duty- based codes are concerned with the moral quality of individual action to a code of proper conduct. One is not free lo deviate from tho plan or call on others to do so. Righbbased codes, in contrast, "protect the value of individual thought and choice," As long as there is no harm or foul to others, one is free to do or live as one wants.

As company, ethnic and national cultures faco-off, will these distinc- tions run parallel. overlap or remain independent of each other?The results indicato that initiation Into a cultural tradition, regarditlg attitudes and responses, takes time. And you thought junior high was a waste.-#KG Soutco: UtmkiW I/mwgh nrilrrres8 1991 by Richard A. Shwder (Hnrviird University Pess)

8 . . .

IEEE POTENTIALS