299

INDEX

Ackoff, Russell, 136Archeology, organizational, 134

Background documents, 83–87, 105, 116, 219

Burning platform, 225–226

Centaur:building a, 148–153,

218–219, 236of excellence, 152programmaticist(s) as 147–148

Clinical study outputs versus outcomes, 20, 202

Coffee house project, 3–4Committee(s):

cross-functional, 14–19, 93, 105, 108, 116–117

governing agility of, 89–92business 117–121, 287capabilities, 92–94capacity, 83, 91, 102, 228decisions, 85, 107–108,

189–192delegation of responsibilities,

139–140, 234–235, 241effi ciency, 86–92integration role, 272, 281limitations, 81–83meetings, 87members, 83, 86, 90, 114–115oversight of programs,

204–209

oversight of projects, 14, 77–83, 202–204

primary, 98, 105, 127roles and responsibilities

30, 64, 77–82, 88, 94–95, 115–116, 163–164, 196–209, 223, 227, 272

secondary, 98, 100–105, 118, 293

specialty, 95, 123, 130–134, 139

review benefi ts of, 98, 101–102business, 117–121governance by, 107mixed function, 116–117operational, 102–103portfolio, 117resource, 117secondary, 98, 100–105,

293specialty, 123, 131strategic, 103technical, 103unintended consequences,

105–109, 111, 119–121, 133–134

Complex adaptive system(s), 159–169, 198, 211, 220, 255–256, 275, 283

Complexity:directional. See Stakeholderenvironmental

defi nition, 50, 287

Managing Complex Projects and Programs: How to Improve

Leadership of Complex Initiatives Using a Third-Generation

Approach by Richard J. Heaslip, PhDCopyright © 2014 Richard J. Heaslip. All rights reservedPublished by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey

300 INDEX

Complexity (continued )management of, 50–57,

151–152, 196–199, 204, 223, 272–273

mystery, misery, and mastery, 57operational

defi nition, 44, 289management of, 44–45,

141–148, 151–152, 184, 196, 198, 204, 209, 231–232, 251, 257, 271

organizational defi nition, 52, 290management of, 52–53,

141–144, 147, 279outcome

defi nition, 46, 290management of, 46–47, 141,

144–149, 151–152, 168, 179, 192–193, 196, 227, 229, 251, 263–268

programmatic, 41, 142–148, 292, 296–297

Rubik’s Cube, 57–59stakeholder, 48–49

defi nition of, 48, 293management of, 48–49, 196,

198, 204, 219Complexity leadership theory,

159–164, 167–168, 172, 183, 266

Credo(s), 17, 30, 39–41, 141, 292Crown vetch, 94–95

Enabling conditions, 78, 82, 287Enterprise-resource and project

management (ERPM) systems, 111

Exasperados:complexity management,

71, 162

defi nition of, 35, 288perspectives of, 35–40, 53

First-generation programmatics. See Programmatics, fi rst generation

First-generation programmatic systems. See Programmatics, fi rst generation

Five-complexities framework: defi nition of, 42–43, 288reactions to, 53–55use(s) 55

Gantt charts, 17, 45Guide to the Project Management

Body of Knowledge (PMBOK), 183

Handey, Jack, 34

Industrial Age, 13, 16–17, 64, 74, 100–101, 124, 200, 212, 231

Inclusivist approach (or perspective), 68–70, 74, 144–148, 231–232, 289

Inclusivist(s), 68–75, 145–148, 162, 231–232, 251–252, 264–268

Leadership:administrative, 161–164adaptive, 161–169, 171–181,

189, 191, 196–198, 201, 203–212, 217–220, 227, 234, 249, 256, 274

behaviors, 73–74, 223, 252–269, 278

challenges, 264–268

INDEX 301

competency research, 260–264, 297

enabling, 161–166, 196–198, 201, 203–212, 219–220, 234, 274

operational, 163–167, 173, 196–198, 201, 203–212, 217–220, 234, 274

persona(s), 250–251programmatic, 152, 173, 193,

247, 249, 252, 256–258, 266–269, 282

project and program, 4–6, 173–181, 250, 297

responsibilities, 19shared, 152, 220 specialists, 280–281style(s), 22, 74, 188, 212,

218, 248command-and-control 22,

25, 71, 173, 179, 217, 237, 266

learn-and-adapt 22, 25, 173, 179, 217, 237, 266

system, 9, 167, 196, 201–202, 268–269

Line function(s):advantages of, 13–17executive(s) (leaders) opinions,

14, 73, 79–80, 100–137, 144, 241–242

subgroups, 100–101

Managing Successful Programmes, 176–177

Operational Integrator. See Operational savant, integrator role

Operational savant, 141–143, 147–148, 151–152, 184,

186, 193, 195, 218–220, 231, 238, 252–253, 257, 274, 276, 278

integrator role, 142–143, 166–167, 219–221, 265, 272–273, 281

Operationalist approach (or perspective), 66–67, 70–75, 140–145, 231–232, 252, 290

Operationalist(s), 66–67, 70–75, 140–145, 231–233, 250–252, 264–267, 278

Organization(s): downsizing, 137–139growth, 99–100, 110, 114, 137breakdown structure(s),

101, 212Outcome sage, 144–148, 151–152,

167–168, 171, 183, 186, 191, 193, 195, 218–221, 228–231, 235, 238–239, 244, 252, 253, 257, 263, 274, 278

integrator role, 167, 169, 219–221, 256, 265, 275, 281

Oversight model(s) or system(s):fully empowered, 232,

258, 289fully governed, 77–95, 144, 159,

166, 191, 226, 231–232, 258, 288–289

adaptations of, 97–135multi-party, 107, 117,

160, 230operationally empowered, 232,

258, 289–290three-party. See also

Programmatics, third generation

302 INDEX

Oversight model(s) or system(s) (continued )

benefi ts of, 150–151, 158, 167, 195, 198–199, 213, 219, 222–225, 229, 246

challenges, 229–244, 264–268choosing, 226–229, 276–282defi ning, 148–153, 197–202managing projects and (sub)

programs, 203–213two-party. See also

Programmatics, fi rst generation, and Programmatics, second generation

adaptations of, 97–135, 140, 148, 229–235

challenges, 97–135, 150–151choosing, 226–229, 275–276limitations of, 81–83, 164, 167traditional, 77–95, 144,

200–206, 212

PERT chart, 17, 45Phase gate approaches, 25–26PMO (project or program

management offi ce), 111, 213, 245

Product manager, 189Program(s):

benefi ts of distinguishing from projects, 213–217

defi nition(s), 128–129, 174–180, 185–192, 214, 290–291, 296

leadership, xii–xv, xix, 3–8, 173, 193, 221, 247–260

outputs and outcomes, 7, 18–22, 25–40, 59, 89–91, 103, 129, 185–192, 202, 207, 210

managing, 43–47, 53–55, 66, 72, 145

sponsorship of subprograms, 209–212

Program manager(s). See also outcome sage

autonomy and authority, 142, 144, 203, 230–235, 278

assigning, 235–240defi nition, 182, 291reporting relationships,

240–244responsibilities, 146–149,

171–174, 182–186, 195–213

titles, 38, 146, 185–186, 233, 265

Program management: behaviors, 143, 251–260benefi ts of distinguishing from

project management, 217–223

competency research, 260–264defi nition, 180–181, 291, 296departments, 244–246reporting relationships,

240–244standards, 45, 49–50, 53, 65, 69,

174–177, 180–182, 192, 248, 275, 280, 295

Program management offi ce. See PMO

Program oversight model. See Oversight model

Programmatic science:defi nition 9–10, 53, 181,

184, 291departments of, 174, 241,

244–246maturity in, 229–230

INDEX 303

Programmaticist(s). See also Program Manager and Project manager

autonomy and authority, 230–235

credo, 40–41, 141, 198, 292defi nition of, 38, 292organizational athletes, 36roles and responsibilities

Inclusivist(s), 68–69, 70, 145–150, 231–233, 250–252, 264–268, 278

Operationalist(s), 66–67, 70, 142–144, 231–233, 250–252, 264–267, 278

re-examining, 140–148signifi cance of differences,

72–75Traditionalist(s), 63–66, 70,

163, 231–233, 250–253, 264, 267–268, 278

titles, 38, 146, 185–186, 233, 265Programmatic approach. See

Programmatics Programmatics:

defi nition, 10, 292fi rst-generation

application of, 30–32, 39, 197, 295

approach, 17–19, 45, 75–80, 153, 203, 218, 252

defi nition, 18–19, 288 second-generation

application of, 29–33, 47–49, 197, 295

approach(es), 26–29, 37, 146, 153, 158

defi nition, 22–23, 293 Exasperado reactions,

35–37, 40

third-generationapplication of, 271–275 approach, 153, 197–213, 246assessing value of, 275–279benefi ts, 213–224, 229choosing, 226–229, 276–282defi nition of, 197–200,

231, 294evolution to, 273–275introducing, 195–197implementing, 225–226,

229–244roles and responsibilities,

200–209, 230–235, 242–243, 256

twelve key questions, 275–279

Project(s): benefi ts of distinguishing from

programs, 213–217creation, 16daughter, 123–129, 205, 209,

211unintended consequences,

126–130defi nitions, 15, 184, 214,

292, 296infrastructure, 111, 123–130

benefi ts of, 123–126unintended consequences of,

126–130leadership, xii–xv, xix, 3–8,

146–152, 184, 227, 233–234, 246–260

number, impact of, 111–115outputs and outcomes, 7, 18–22,

25–40, 59, 89–91, 103, 129, 185–192, 202, 207, 210

managing, 43–47, 53–55, 66, 72

304 INDEX

Project(s) (continued )parent, 85, 123–124, 127–128,

210–211phases, 17, 26, 132,

139–140, 205–208, 277prioritization, 22, 78, 82, 103,

108, 112–118, 271team

agility, 75, 89composition, 78formation, 15–20high-performance, 68

Project manager(s). See also operational savant

assigning, 235–240autonomy and authority, 142,

144, 203, 230–235, 278defi nition, 184, 293 responsibilities, 144, 149,

184–186, 195–213, 272role as a conductor, 125title(s), 15, 38, 146, 185–186,

233, 265Project management:

agile, 26–27, 29, 31, 33, 37 beginnings, 13–16benefi ts of distinguishing from

program management, 217–223

complex, 27, 29, 31, 37credo, 17, 30, 39–41, 141defi nition, 184–192, 292, 296departments, 244–246exasperation of, 6–9 exhilaration of, 4–5extreme, 28–29, 37identity crisis, 31, 35–36, 70, 73,

146, 183, 186, 209introduction of, 15processes, 17–19

standards, 45, 49–50, 53, 65, 69, 174–177, 180–183, 192, 248, 280, 295

vending machine analogy, 10Project Management Institute 58,

128, 175, 180, 183Project management offi ce. See

PMOProject oversight model. See

Oversight model

Resource(s): allocation, 44, 50, 67, 79, 82,

100, 111–114, 126, 133, 138, 140, 203

competition for, 111–114estimates, 113review committees, 117–120,

163, 203, 205, 207, 271

Secondary governance committee(s). See Committee(s), governing, secondary

Secondary review committee(s). See Committee(s), review, secondary

Second-generation programmatics. See Programmatics, second generation

Second -generation programmatic systems. See Programmatics, second generation

Stakeholder engagement and management, 47–49, 58

Subprograms, 128, 179–182, 208–212, 217

Super-leaders, 281

INDEX 305

Traditionalist approach (or perspective), 63–66, 69–75, 88, 101, 231–232, 252–253, 294

Traditionalist(s), 70–75, 231–233, 250–252, 264, 267–268, 278

Uncertainty:environmental

defi nition of, 49–50, 288signifi cance of, 50

managing, 43–52, 77–78, 138–146, 151, 157, 168, 179, 184, 192–193, 196–199, 204, 209, 218, 227–231, 237, 244, 248, 251, 253, 257

operational defi nition of, 43, 289

signifi cance of, 43–44, 141, 184, 196

organizationaldefi nition of, 51, 290signifi cance of, 51–52

outcomedefi nition of, 45, 290signifi cance of, 46, 168,

178–179, 193, 196, 216stakeholder

defi nition of, 47–48, 293–294

signifi cance of, 48University of Pennsylvania,

xv, xix

VosSavant, Marilyn, 33

Work breakdown structure(s), 125–126