20-12-2013 Towards the introduction of fit-for-purpose project management (Full Version)

Towards!the$introduction$of!fit!for!purpose'project(management"

An#explorative#case#study#on#implementing#central#planning#and#risk#log#

MSc Thesis Tjeerd Teerlink

December 2013

Towards!the$introduction!of!fit!for!purpose'!project(management"

An#explorative#case#study#on#implementing#central#planning#and#risk#log#

The front-page picture is a visualisation of words from an initial study on the perceived prob-lems in the project execution group of the improvement program of Huisman Equipment. The

perceived problems have led to the research propositions for this empirical study on fit-for-purpose project management. The size of each word is determined by normalized word fre-

quencies1

Graduate student: Tjeerd Teerlink Student number: 1313843 "University: Delft University of Technology Program: Construction, Management & Engineering Course: Master Thesis, CME2000 Committee & section Chair: Prof.dr.ir. A. (Alexander) Verbraeck TPM : SK 1st supervisor: Dr.ir. H.G. (Herman) Mooi 3ME : PME 2th supervisor: Dr.ir. M.G.C. (Marian) Bosch-Rekveldt CiTG : IDM 1st External supervisor: (Robert) Janssen Project manager 2th External supervisor: (Dirk) Leenheer COO External company: Huisman Equipment Date: 15-12-‘13

1 Normalized word frequency visualization with Tagxedo.com (excluding the words; project, management, pro-cess, risk, planning, Huisman, PM and improvement)

Preface'""This research report on fit-for-purpose project management is the result of my internship at B.V., and also serves as thesis for my Master in Construction Management and Engineering (CME) at the TU Delft. I consider myself lucky to be given the opportunity to do my graduation project with Huisman Equipment. Combining my graduation thesis with an internship has always been my wish, because I saw it is a unique chance in life to link scientific paradigms you learned about at the university with practical reality. My interest in Huisman Equipment began out of admiration for the highly innovative offshore equipment the company builds. I was very eager to learn more about the strengths and weaknesses of initiatives for organisational improvements, which the company had communicated in an improvement program folder. My internship at Huisman Equipment offered a great learning experience in ‘real-world ef-forts’ of project management implementation and organisational changes in general. I like to thank Huisman Equipment and especially Dirk and Robert who are also the members of my graduation committee working at Huisman Equipment for offering me this opportunity, spon-soring this research and giving me all freedom to do my research. I also would like to thank all respondents for their time and openness during the interviews, and my colleagues at Huis-man Equipment, particularly those of the project management department, for making me feel at home in the company. The research turned out to be more sociologically oriented than I had expected, and this proved to be a major challenge but also added to my learning experiences. In facing this and other challenges I am thankful for the guidance and assistance, especially by Marian and Herman, also members of my graduation committee, who kept me on track and on schedule and were good sounding boards when discussing my views and mind-boggling ideas about my research. Not all of my ideas proved as flawless and viable as I initially thought, thus causing some thesis frustration at some moments, but fortunately my roommates and friends have always been great in providing timely distractions and entertainment. I am grateful to Roy and Hans for their proofreading and joint efforts and advice on how to improve the final draft of this thesis. Above all I want to thank the members of my family for acting as my greatest fans and who were the most appreciated supporters and sponsors during my entire study adventure. Tjeerd, Delft, December 2013

"

!List!of#abbreviations!and$list%of%definitions"

List of definitions Control'''COO''Coordination'''''Culture'''Formal'''Obstacles'/'short5comings'&'barriers'' ''''''PM'culture''''Project'management'

'The'power'to'influence'or'direct'people's'behavior'or'the'course'of'events'(Dictionary'Apple'Inc.)''Chief'Operational'Officer''The'organization'of'the'different'elements'of'a'complex'body'or'activity'so'as'to'enable'them'to'work'together'effec5tively:'an'important'managerial'task'is'the'control'and'co5ordination'of'activities.'(Dictionary'Apple'Inc.)''The'ideas,'customs,'and'social'behavior'of'a'particular'group'of'people'or'society.'(Dictionary'Apple'Inc.)''Having'a'conventionally'recognized'form,'structure,'or'set'of'rules'(Dictionary'Apple'Inc.)''Shortcomings'and'barriers'were'pragmatically'chosen'in'chapter'4'and'the'cross–case'matrix'to'categorize'the'out5comes.'In'this'study'barriers'are'defined'as'shortcomings'or'deficiencies'that'make'it'impossible'to'reach'certain'targets'or'to'achieve'certain'goals.'Barriers'thwart'or'prevent'change.'Obstacles'are'defined'as'shortcomings'or'deficien5cies'that'make'certain'targets'or'goals'as'yet'difficult'to'reach.'Obstacles'hamper'or'delay'change,'but'can'in'princi5ple'be'removed'or'overcome.''The'ideas,'customs,'and'social'behavior'of'people'within'a'company'related'to'the'knowledge,'skills,'tools'and'tech5niques'to'project'activities'to'meet'the'project'requirements''The'application'of'knowledge,'skills,'tools'and'techniques'to'project'activities'to'meet'the'project'requirements.'(PMBOK5guide,'2000)'''''

List of abbreviations CP ERP IP KPI PE PM RL WBS

!Central Planning Enterprise resource planning Improvement program Key Performance Indicators Project Execution Project Management Risk Log Work Break-down Structure

Thesis&summary!"The plan for this research originated from the improvement program (IP) of Huisman Equip-ment. Particularly important are its goal statement for project execution with increased quality and efficiency through uniformity, clarity as well as with project management (PM) im-provements (Huisman, 2012). Huisman Equipment provides an example of countless compa-nies, which are continually looking to improve PM practices. Improving project management practices is considered essential for project management organizations (PMO’s) to ensure project delivery on time and within budget, and to stay competitive (The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2009). Although many companies acknowledge the need for PM improve-ments they often fail in implementing well-defined PM practices (The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2009). The scientific relevance of this report derives from a lack of research on conflicts with PM implementation and a general deficiency in the up-to-date major project management journals on empirical research to test project management theories which have the tendency to repeat underlying assumptions of previous research (Hällgren, 2012) Huisman Equipment is a fast growing offshore company successful in highly innovative products and in search for organisational improvements. The entrepreneurial character of the company, reflected in its highly innovative offshore equipment innovations, offers a favoura-ble opportunity to study entrepreneurial characteristics affecting PM implementation with this case study. In the Improvement Program document (Huisman, 2012) it is stated that the organization has not kept up with developments that came with the growth of the company. This has resulted in some of the inefficiencies and organizational misalignments that are often found in fast-growing companies and which can be addressed by PM. Numerous PM practices are described in leading PM guides like PMBOK, Prince2 or CMMI. This research was limited to planning processes and risk processes. This scope as well as the research questions followed from an pilot study of perceived problems amongst those em-ployees responsible for project execution within the problem execution group in the Im-provement Program (Huisman, 2012). The focus on planning and risk is in line with the pro-fessional interests of the case-study company and the graduation commission. Interviews form a large part of the case-study research. Central planning (CP) and risk log (RL) are used not only as more tangible subjects for the respondents, they also allow for cross-case evaluation of interview results. CP was introduced in the case-study company around 3 years ago together with the appointment of a new COO. A RL is currently non-existing in the company and was pragmatically chosen by Huisman Equipment as potentially interesting future PM practice for the company, where currently risks are not uniformly doc-umented and considered individually. The elements that are explored in the interviews are illustrated in Figure 1 and derived from the following research questions:

What is a fit-for-purpose approach for implementing risk log and central planning PM prac-tices, without losing entrepreneurial strengths within the company?

a. What benefits does PM potentially offer and what defines a PM work culture? b. What defines the company culture and how does this relate to a PM culture? c. What are the possible obstacles for the implementation of PM?

Figure 1: Visual model of the connections between the case study questions and elements

PM methods are dependent on usage by project managers and the handling by employees of several other departments. Therefore the research propositions are examined by interviewing 3 project managers and the department heads of Sales, Engineering, Supply Chain, Produc-tion, Test & Commissioning and the Planning department. Afterwards the COO was inter-viewed on the findings of the previous interviews. A cross-case analysis is done to examine the most significant points of agreement and difference among the respondents. Results This study claims that more fit-for-purpose approaches are needed on the basis of the present research which shows that implementing PM in organizations like Huisman Equipment. The case study results offer good reasons to adapt the organization to PM but at the same time identifies a number of obstacles to the implementation of PM.

The conclusions in this study will focus on the first step for fit-for-purpose PM implementa-tion by preparing the organization for PM changes and narrowing the gap between the pre-vailing work culture and the PM work culture that is needed. Finding PM tools that are fit-for-purpose to different types of projects in the company is the next step to be taken after the or-ganization has been prepared for fit-for-purpose PM implementation. The conclusion for fit-for-purpose PM implementation is two-fold. First the awareness of why fit-for-purpose PM implementation is needed will be discussed. Followed by recommendations how fit-for-purpose PM implementations should deal with this awareness. The observed benefits of PM tools seem to accord reasonably well with leading PM guides like PMBOK, Prince2 or CMMI. But although these benefits are acknowledged the case study also shows strong obstacles that prevent the implementation of PM tools. Although PM litera-ture indicates that PM implementations often fail there is as yet little knowledge on the obsta-cles that hamper the implementation of PM tools. Some PM literature on PM maturity models claim successful PM depends on choosing the right PM tools suited to management goals and PM maturity of the company. But only little literature discusses the difficulties of needed work culture changes. Payne (Payne, 1993) and Polesie (Polesie, 2013) are among the few who hint that PM implementations might be obstructed more by work culture problems than problems with the system. This case study argues that the gap between current work culture and a needed PM work culture might be one of the most important obstacles that need atten-tion in more successful fit-for-purpose PM implementation. According with the PM literature from Meredith & Mantel (Meredith & Mantel, 2010), this case study shows that PM tools could potentially help project managers to coordinate pro-jects. In this case study project managers need to actively gather information themselves in order to be able to coordinate projects. They believe that PM tools offer potential to be more responsive to information delivered to project managers from departments. The potential to improve coordination with PM tools is not only seen dependent on the PM tool design but also on collaborative effort of employees giving meaningful input to these PM tools. This col-laborative effort to give input to the PM tools requires a PM work culture that is seen as just or even more important than the PM tools itself. The work culture that is perceived needed for PM seems to differ from the prevailing work culture. Some of the respondents referred to this as a gap between “what is” (ist) and “what is needed” (soll). This case study emphasizes that acceptance of PM tools and the related PM work culture will not be easy since a PM work culture is characterized by aspects conflicting with the highly valued current work culture. Furthermore some of the literature suggests that the PM work culture characteristics mentioned in the case study might need a management style that con-flicts with some of the current work culture characteristics (Martini, 2013) (Koppenjan et al., 2011). The present work culture has led to successes, is highly valued and seems well-suited for entrepreneurial companies with work culture values like flexibility to adapt to unforeseen circumstances, work freedom and informal communication. A PM work culture, on the other hand, requires values that go against the prevailing work culture as it demands more control, with insight in task responsibility and task authority and more formal communication with less work freedom. The desire for more formal communication is expressed with desires for conventionally recognized forms, structures and rules. A fit-for-purpose PM implementation should recognize the contradicting management needs and requires a clear explanation of the

need to find a new balance between current work culture strengths and needed PM work cul-ture to convince employees of this. This case study offers two main reasons why moving towards a PM work culture and imple-menting PM tools is perceived needed. The first reason is that the increased number of em-ployees in the company has led to difficulties in the information exchange between depart-ments. Payne also mentions the introduction of formal PM is seen as potential improvement for cross-functional coordination (Payne, 1993). The second reason is related to increased repetition in produced products, caused by using more components of previously produced products. For example repeating components of a previously produced crane for a new type of crane. Repetition is believed to create opportunities for more efficient production- and man-agement processes, reducing cost, improving quality, time and client satisfaction with more standardization of production- and PM processes. The discussion above leads to recommendations for a fit-for-purpose approach that should increase acceptance of PM tools and convince employees to move towards a PM work cul-ture. Summarized in one sentence: fit-for-for purpose PM implementation should consist of small coordinated PM steps leading towards collaborative goals, taking into account man-agement characteristics that conflict with the present work culture. Fit-for-purpose PM implementation should convince employees that collaborative effort is needed for PM tools to be successful. To convince employees of this effort, the goals for PM and how the selected PM tools contribute to these goals should be clarified. To convince em-ployees to change the work culture towards the characteristics of PM work culture, the PM goals and arguments for selected PM tools need to be made understandable to get accepted by employees and should have full support of the entire management since an individual manag-er’s vision on PM could be seen as temporary by employees. In this case study it was found that disagreement exist between the majority of the respondents and the COO, on current CP design contributing to more insight in task progress, and this is an important reasons less sup-port on CP among employees. In this case study it was found that disagreement exists be-tween the majority of the respondents and the COO on the current CP design. This is an im-portant reason for the lack of support for CP among the employees. When the decision is made to improve or implement a new PM tool somebody has to be made responsible to coordinate change management for the PM implementation. The responsible persons should be granted enough time to facilitate and coordinate the changes in the compa-ny and ensure continuous improvement of the PM tools. This should prevent only to focus on ‘doing’, that Meredith & Mental describe often prevents PM implementation in organisations because it appears to be more effective to ‘stop all the talk’ and ‘get on with the work’ (Meredith & Mantel, 2010). The change management should consist of continuous cycles that start with setting goals for the PM tool. Followed by choosing or improving a PM tool based on arguments how this tool will contribute in achieving the PM goals. The PM goals and PM tools should have full support of the entire management since employees could see an indi-vidual manager’s vision on PM as temporary. As well small intermediate steps to achieve the PM goals will make it easier to get work culture changes accepted. The final step of the cycle should evaluate the PM tool its contribution to the PM goals and assess potential improve-ments to restart the cycle.

Finally, to implement fit-for-purpose PM, it seems needed to first prepare the organization that seems rather unknown with PM tools that are used uniformly company-wide and with a work culture that seems to differ from the work culture that is needed for PM. Further re-search could validate this needed preparation with similar case study examples or explore if companies with successful implemented PM tools followed similar preparation. Depending on the PM focus different projects will require different fit-for-purpose PM tools that should be determined in a next step. For the focus on CP and RL this case study indicates that a RL could be especially interesting for more innovative projects to have better risk communication between departments. For CP this case study shows projects with more repeti-tion could benefit most by increasing efficiency on repeating product parts, whereas innova-tive projects are harder to plan because of more uncertainties and risks. But there can be sev-eral other PM foci. For example in this case study it is proposed to make some PM tools more uniform, since people now use individual chosen PM formats, while within a PM work cul-ture PM tools with conventionally recognized form, structure and rules are wanted.

Table"of"Contents"

Preface!...................................................................................................................................!4'List!of!abbreviations!and!list!of!definitions!..............................................................!5'Thesis!summary!.................................................................................................................!7'1' Introduction!.................................................................................................................!1'1.1' Huisman!Equipment!as!case!study!............................................................................!1'1.2' Research!objectives!and!goal!.......................................................................................!2'1.3' Research!approach!..........................................................................................................!2'1.4' Scope!of!the!research!......................................................................................................!3'1.5' Research!questions!.........................................................................................................!4'1.6' Report!structure!...............................................................................................................!4'

2' The!need!for!fitHforHpurpose!PM!research!.........................................................!6'2.1' Potential!benefits!of!project!management!..............................................................!6'2.2' Project!management!drawbacks!................................................................................!7'2.3' Project!management!obstacles!...................................................................................!7'

3' Research!methodology:!exploratory!case!study!..............................................!9'3.1' Why!case!studies?!............................................................................................................!9'3.2' Case!study!topic!outline!...............................................................................................!10'3.3' Multiple!embedded!research!design!for!the!case!studies!................................!11'3.4' Case!study!protocol!.......................................................................................................!13'3.5' CaseHstudy!interview!questions!................................................................................!13'3.6' Case!&!interviewee!selection!.....................................................................................!14'3.7' Collecting!the!evidence!................................................................................................!16'

4' Case!study!interviews!.............................................................................................!18'4.1' Introducing!the!respondents!.....................................................................................!18'4.2' CrossHcase!conclusions!CP!..........................................................................................!24'4.3' CrossHcase!conclusions!RL!..........................................................................................!31'4.4' Reflection!of!COO!on!the!department!interviews!...............................................!36'

5' FitHforHpurpose!PM!discussion!&!reflection!on!theory!................................!39'5.1' Which!benefits!does!PM!potentially!offer!and!what!defines!a!PM!work!

culture?!........................................................................................................................................!39'5.2' What!defines!the!company!culture!and!how!does!this!relate!to!a!PM!

culture?!........................................................................................................................................!43'5.3' What!are!the!possible!obstacles!for!the!implementation!of!PM?!..................!45'5.4' PM!implementation!suggestions!..............................................................................!48'5.5' Validity!..............................................................................................................................!53'

6' Conclusions!&!recommendations!.......................................................................!56'6.1' Which!benefits!does!PM!potentially!offer!and!what!defines!a!PM!work!

culture?!........................................................................................................................................!56'6.2' What!defines!the!company!culture!and!how!does!this!relate!to!a!PM!

culture?!........................................................................................................................................!57'6.3' What!are!the!possible!obstacles!for!the!implementation!of!PM?!..................!57'6.4' A!succinct!conclusion!on!fitHforHpurpose!project!management!..............!Error!'Bookmark'not'defined.'6.5' Suggestions!for!further!research!..............................................................................!62'

6.6' Managerial!recommendations!..................................................................................!63'7' Reflection!...................................................................................................................!65'7.1' On!the!academic!side!....................................................................................................!65'7.2' On!the!practical!side!.....................................................................................................!65'7.3' On!the!results!..................................................................................................................!65'7.4' Personal!challenges!......................................................................................................!66'

8' Bibliography!..............................................................................................................!67'Appendix!I:!Problem!focus!matrix!analysis!..............................................................!1'1' Creating!focus!..............................................................................................................!1'1.1' Making!problems!explicit!.............................................................................................!2'1.2' Constructing!the!problem!focus!matrix!...................................................................!2'

2' Problem!analysis!........................................................................................................!7'2.1' Problem!owner!.................................................................................................................!7'2.2' Main!goals!...........................................................................................................................!7'2.3' Results!from!problem!focus!matrix!...........................................................................!7'2.4' Criteria!................................................................................................................................!9'2.5' Instruments!perceived!to!influence!the!problem!...............................................!10'2.6' Potential!benefits!of!PM!...............................................................................................!11'2.7' Concluding!the!main!research!question!................................................................!12'

Appendix!II:!Long!list!interview!statements!.........................................................!13'1' Intro!of!statements!categories!............................................................................!13'1.1' Central!planning!(CP)!...................................................................................................!13'1.2' Risk!log!..............................................................................................................................!20'1.3' Implementation!barriers!............................................................................................!22'1.4' PM!work!culture!&!Company!culture!......................................................................!23'1.5' Project!success!................................................................................................................!34'1.6' Entrepreneurial!characteristics!...............................................................................!35'

Appendix!III:!CrossHcase!Matrix!.................................................................................!36'Appendix!IV:!Interview!protocol!(in!Dutch)!..........................................................!41'Appendix!V:!Scheme!for!research!question!1!.......................................................!45'Appendix!VI:!Scheme!for!research!question!2!......................................................!46'Appendix!VII:!Scheme!for!research!question!3!....................................................!48'

!

Fit-for-purpose project management |

1

1 Introduction"Project management improvements for organizational improvements are an on-going concern for many companies. Adapting organization structures to mature project management organi-zations (PMO’s) are deemed essential for industries to ensure project delivery on time, within budget and for staying competitive (The Economist, 2009). Many companies aim for more uniform management practices with standardized project management tools, to increase effi-ciency, cooperation or to improve how they measure quantitative and qualitative project out-comes (ibid.). However they often fail successfully implementing these changes within the organization (ibid.). Companies often start with a simple organizational structure. A simple structure is a structure with relative autonomous individuals and limited influence from managers and analysts on their functioning, little formalized behaviour and with mainly directs supervision and stimula-tion of horizontal as well as vertical decentralization (Mintzberg, 2009). Bigger projects and growing numbers of employees make direct control more difficult. Adopting a matrix struc-ture could theoretically create more vertical as well as horizontal centralization in an organi-zation. More vertical centralization since official decision power moves from the work floor to the project managers thus resulting in less autonomously working force. More horizontal centralization, on the other hand, is where unofficial power moves from line managers to managers and analysts (Mintzberg, 2008). Often their information needs require information exchange with more formal procedures and standards (ibid.). This unofficial power shift to managers and analysts indicates the need for cross-functional coordination. Cross-functional coordination requires formal project management (Payne, 1993). While there are many attempts to implement formal PM improvements they frequently fail (The Economist, 2009). Scientific knowledge falls short in explaining this failure. A recent evaluation of 61 management papers of four leading project management journals concludes that project research has a tendency to endorse the underlying assumptions of previous re-search and express the need for empirical examples. (Hällgren, 2012)

1.1 Huisman#Equipment#as#case#study#

Huisman Equipment offers a great opportunity for empirical research on problems connected with PM implementation. The company has experienced rapid growth and at present engaged in search for organisational improvements. One of the decisions in this search was to move towards a matrix-structured organization about two years ago. This move can be explained by a need for more horizontal decentralization. This is often followed by an increased need for formal procedures and standards for managers and analysts (Mintzberg, 2008). Subsequently, there is a need for more cross-functional coordination. As Payne notes, to be able to have cross-functional coordination there is a need for formal PM (Payne, 1993). This research will focus on Huisman Equipment’s headquarters in Schiedam where most of the project management is located. Huisman Equipment experienced rapid employee growth from 200 in the year 2000 to over 2000 employees at present. Huisman Equipment began as a company led mainly by engineers involved in innovative off-shore projects. Until recently the company did not undertake much organizational change.

Scientific rele-vance

Intro to Huis-man equipment

Relevance of Huisman Equipment

Search for pro-ject manage-ment improve-ments

Occasion

Scientific rele-vance


2

Not adapting the organization could cause inefficiencies and misalignments commonly found in fast-growing companies (Huisman, 2012 p:10). Projects have grown more complex and capital-intensive were deficient control on projects execution could increase risks. This could lead to less successful projects, thus endangering the competitive position, the growth poten-tial and ultimately even the continuity of the company. Huisman Equipment has introduced the Improvement Program both to evaluate and improve its organization. One of the 6 sub-groups concerns Project Execution. The main goal of the Project Executions group reads “Increased quality and efficiency of project execution through uniformity and clarity” (Huisman, 2012). This goal reflects the Company’s search for organi-zational improvements in PM practices. Just like many other companies, improved PM practices is a felt need. Experiences from other companies demonstrate that implementing PM improvement often fails. Since there is a shortage of scientific knowledge on problems occurring during the implementation PM prac-tices, Huisman Equipment offers an interesting case study. The case is assumed suitable for researching problems surrounding PM implementation and for examining more fit-for-purpose approaches for formal PM implementation since the com-pany expresses interest in PM implementation for its improvement program but at the same time experiences difficulties in achieving this. In the search for fit-for-purpose approaches it soon became apparent that Huisman Equipment characterized by very entrepreneurial projects in the offshore industry. Preserving the companies entrepreneurial strengths might be conflict-ing with requirements that could come with the introduction of project management. In our explorative research on fit-for-purpose approaches the entrepreneurial preserving strengths shall get special attention.

1.2 Research#objectives#and#goal#

The goal of this research is to improve knowledge on more fit-for-purpose approaches for implementing PM method by using Huisman Equipment as case study and compare observa-tions with existing PM paradigms. The objective of this research is twofold. For science, the objective is to improve knowledge on difficulties in implementing PM methods through empirical research. For Huisman Equipment there is the more practical objective of creating an overview of problems and es-tablishing priorities in choosing the best approach for PM initiatives aligned with the compa-ny’s characteristics.

1.3 Research#approach#

This research is directed at exploring fit-for-purpose PM implementation approach without testing theories. This is because there is little research on fit-for-purpose PM implementation or the related problems. The following three steps represent the main research parts that were chosen for the research.

1. Analysis of perceived problems (structuring problems in project execution, setting limitations in scope, specifying research questions and formulating interview ques-tions)

2. Exploratory interviews (in-depth interviews on sub- questions within scope limits)

Problem

Research ob-jectives

Research goal

Three research parts

Research di-lemma


3

3. Cross-case-analysis (comparing department statements and deducing cross-department alignment)

Huisman Equipment seemed to offer a suitable opportunity for in-depth research since the current search of the company for organizational changes plus the openness and cooperation by Huisman Equipment and its COO to do empirical research and conduct interviews freely among its personnel. In order to focus the research, we started analysing the perceived problems. Most fortunately there happened to be an Improvement Program (IP) going that had just (January 2013) con-ducted a survey of the perceived problems by the problem execution (PE) group. The IP (Huisman, 2012) consists of four groups of which the PE group is most connected with ideas for PM improvements. Within the PE group there were four persons responsible for the sub-jects of cost control (Huisman, 2013a), risk management process (Huisman, 2013b), project management process (Huisman, 2013c) and PE planning (Huisman, 2013d). The problems documented for the four disciplines have been analysed and all four persons responsible have been interviewed on the perceived most urgent problems in project execution. The results of this pilot study have been analysed in Appendix I: Problem focus matrix analysis. This analy-sis and after consultation with the personnel of Huisman Equipment interested in the subject has resulted in the limitation/delineation of the research scope as discussed in 1.4 and the formulation of the research sub-questions in 1.5. The report structure and how the exploratory interviews and cross-case analysis fit into this report is discussed in paragraph 1.6

1.4 Scope#of#the#research#

As stated in the introduction, and visualized in Figure 2, the search for PM practices often seems to originate from a perceived need for more control & monitoring as a result of envi-ronmental changes, like the company’s growth. Projects can be managed in numerous ways with the help of numerous PM practices to find control and monitoring. This research elected to focus on risk and planning process with Central Planning (CP) and Risk Log (RL) offering tangible foci for in-debt exploratory interviews in line with the interests of Huisman Equip-ment. CP and RL seemed promising foci within PM in the view of the fact that CP was recently in-troduced, 3 years ago, simultaneously with the introduction of the new COO. Furthermore respondents see CP as one of the first cross departmental processes in the company. A RL is an example of PM practices that is not yet introduced and that might offer prospects for the company manage risks that are described by numerous leading PM guides like PMBOK, Prince2 or CMMI.

Research wealth in Huisman Equipment


4

Figure 2: Need and focus on implementing formal PM

1.5 Research#questions#

The pilot study (see: Appendix I: Problem focus matrix analysis) on the problems encoun-tered by the project execution group in the ongoing improvement program (Huisman, 2012) helped to determine the main research question and the sub-questions . The pilot study to-gether with the research goal and the focus on central planning and risk log leads to the fol-lowing main research question and sub-questions: Main research question What is a fit-for-purpose approach for implementing central planning and risk log PM prac-tices, without losing entrepreneurial strengths within the company? 'Sub5'research'questions:'

a. What benefits does PM potentially offer and what defines a PM work culture? b. What defines the company culture and how does this relate to a PM culture? c. What are the possible obstacles for the implementation of PM?

The following paragraph will describe how this report is structured to answer these questions.

1.6 Report#structure#

In the introduction chapter, the motive/reason for the research was introduced first. Subse-quently it was explained why Huisman Equipment seems a good case example for this re-search. Next the three main research parts were presented and the first part of the problem analysis. The latter helped to determine the research scope and questions. The next chapter reviews the literature about the need for fit-for-purpose PM research, the potentials of PM and the imperfections of PM. The third chapter describes the research meth-odology used and explains why in-depth interviews are especially suited for the present re-search. Chapter Four offers the results of the cross-case findings of the in-depth interviews. After which Chapter Five will analyse these outcomes and provides a reflection with relevant literature, summons important outcomes for Huisman Equipment and discusses the validity of the outcomes. Chapter Six concludes this research and offers suggestions for further research


5

as well as managerial recommendations. The final chapter seven reflects on the entire re-search.


6

'

2 The$need#for#fit!for!purpose'PM'research" This chapter will discuss theories to highlight the demand for more fit-for-purpose PM re-search. Although the remaining of the research focuses on central planning (CP) and risk log (RL) the research starts with exploring overall PM in chapter. The literature topics follow out of the perceived problem analysis and therefore have a high overlap with the research ques-tions. First 2.1 will discuss some important potential benefits of PM since obviously PM practices are considered for their potential benefits. Although leading PM guides like PMBOK, Prince2 or CMMI mainly emphasize its benefits, PM practises must also have imperfections restrain-ing its implementation. Therefore 2.2 will describe some potential PM drawbacks found in literature and furthermore some apparent obstacles for PM implementation are discussed in 2.3.

2.1 Potential#benefits#of#project#management#

“Project management is the application of knowledge, skills, tools and techniques to project activities to meet the project requirements.” Quotation 1: (PMBOK-guide, 2000 ;p6)

Project management is one way of managing projects that PMBOK describes in quote 1 above. There are countless other ways of managing projects of which project management (PM) practices is only one. These PM practices have a few different well-known guides like PMBOK, Prince2 or CMMI, describing their entire arguments of how this should be done. CP and RL are tools that are usually dominantly present in most PM practises. Reasons to pursue MP practices presumably grew out of perceived benefits for implementing PM practices. One of these potential benefits, according to Payne, lies in improved cross-functional coordination considering that traditional, functionally structured organizations do not easily permit cross-functional coordination and the introduction of formal PM is seen as potential improvement (Payne, 1993). Potential benefits from PM practices are thought to result from improved coordination of tasks. Task coordination focuses the responsibility and authority to meet the project require-ments, confirming the desires of an individual or small group within an organization (Meredith & Mantel, 2010). Managers are expected to coordinate the tasks. Where the organ-izational form and the project form should enable responsive coordination (Meredith & Mantel, 2010), in which PM practices could be seen to have the potential to improve this. Po-tential improvements might be seen in the needs to be responsive. Meredith & Mantel de-scribe managers need to be able to be responsive to the client environment, to identify and correct problems at an early stage, to make timely decisions about trade-offs between con-flicting project goals and to ensure that managers of the separate tasks do not optimize the performance of their individual tasks at the expense of the total project (Meredith & Mantel, 2010).

Cross-functional co-ordination

Coordination of tasks by (pro-ject) managers

Defining PM


7

2.2 Project#management#drawbacks#“Managers expect they can plan all the variables in a complex project in advance, but they

can’t. Nobody is that smart or has that clear a crystal ball.” Quotation 2: (Matta & Ashkenas, 2003 ;p4)

The second citation from the work of Matta & Ashkenas hints to reporting risks that could occur in project management that will never be perfect. Matta & Ashkenas state planning methods are usually intended to reduce the execution risk of planned activities not being car-ried out properly. But by doing this often underestimate the 1) white space risk of some ac-tivities not being identified in advance by planning leaving gaps in project plan, and 2) the integration risk when al planned activities are finished but the result is not delivering the in-tended result (Matta & Ashkenas, 2003). Similar white space and integration risks might need to be considered with the implementation of all PM tools used for reporting information. Besides not being perfect, PM practices and other company values might contradict with each other. For example control and flexibility impose contradictory requirements upon man-agement of projects (Koppenjan, Veeneman, van der Voort, ten Heuvelhof, & Leijten, 2011). Another possible contradiction may be found in product characteristics, because of different management needs for exploitation versus exploration characteristics while both be needed. Exploration involves search, variation, risk-taking, experimentation, play, flexibility, discov-ery and innovation. Exploitation can be described by refinement, choice, production, efficien-cy, selection, implementation and execution (Martini, 2013a). These and other contradictory management needs might exist in a company. Simply looking at one aspect to improve PM practises might have adverse effects on other aspects of the company which makes it imperative to develop holistic fit-for-purpose PM approaches.

2.3 Project#management#obstacles#“ These problems are primarily problems of resistance to chance, and they are hence ‘peo-

ple’ problems rather than problems with the system or practices themselves” Quotation 3: (Payne, 1993 ;p1)

As stated above, PM involves the application of a combination of knowledge, skills, tools, techniques and organization structures. The present research is focusing on CP and RL and therefore it is interesting to examine whether these tools are felt to be designed sufficiently and whether other PM fragments are felt needed for an efficient functioning. Globerson for example states break down structures are essential for effective planning processes (Globerson, 1994) Besides failures that are due to the system design there might be other obstacles such as those referred to in the third quotation. For instance, a change in work culture could be required and there are indications that this change is not easy to bring about. Payne concludes that the in-troduction of PM commonly causes problems. He suggests that the functioning is dependent on choosing the right organizational structure, where a project-biased matrix appears most effective. Payne adds that for the organization to become comfortable with the chanced or-ganizational structure it may take many years and that the resistance to chance is more caused by ‘people’ problems rather than by problems with the system (Payne, 1993). Payne suggests that there are two common problems caused either by mistrust and conflict between function-al groups or by the selection and establishment of an appropriate team structure (Payne, 1993). Another reason for resistance to change could be when the change conflicts with the work motivation, especially the sense of work freedom (Polesie, 2013). Polesie writes about signs that show the importance of a sense of freedom for construction project managers when

Control vs. flexibility con-tradiction

Exploitation vs. exploration contradiction

PM will never be perfect

PM system design

Conflicts be-tween func-tional groups

Sense of work freedom


8

implementing standardization processes. But, this sense of work freedom could just as well be important for other employees and for the PM implementation..

2.3.1 Conclusion"The previously discussed literature shows that there is a need for explorative research on fit-for-purpose PM. The present research aims to contribute to this need for empirical PM exam-ples. In a PM literature evaluation Hällgren concludes that the majority of current PM re-search has a tendency to re-emphasize its own underlying assumptions (Hällgren, 2012). Shenhar recognizes the need for explorative research on fit-for-purpose approaches for PM in his book called Reinventing Project Management. In his book Shenhar states that new ap-proaches are needed because traditional project management assumes that all projects follow a standard set of rules and processes while this is not enough for today’s dynamic projects (Shenhar, 2007).

"


9

3 !Research(methodology:(exploratory(case(study"Since there is a lack of research on conflicts with PM implementation and a general lack of empirical research to test project management theory in general (Hällgren, 2012), this re-search will explore conflicts surrounding PM implementation with empirical research as vis-ualized in Figure 3. The research will relate the case studies from Huisman Equipment to ap-plicable theories to arrive at recommendations on how Huisman Equipment could increase its chance for the successful implementation of PM. At the same time to contribute to the im-provement of management theory with empirically research on problems that obstruct formal PM implementation.

The first section will explain why case studies seem most suitable for this research. The next section will clarify how the case studies relate to finding an answer to the research questions.

3.1 Why#case#studies?#

Case studies are chosen as method for empirical research. Quantitative research is not appli-cable since the reasons for conflicts are largely unknown, have to be explored first, and there-fore it is not known which data are needed for a quantitative research. From among the quali-tative research methods available the case study method seems the most suitable as it fits with characteristics specified by Verschuren & Dodewaard in their book on case studies (Verschuren & Doorewaard, 2010); namely a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, where the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident and in which multiple sources of evidence are used. Case studies retain the holistic and meaningful characteristics of real-life events such as or-ganisational and managerial processes (Yin, 2003). Furthermore a case study is especially useful when the boundaries between phenomenon and real-life context are not clearly evident (Yin, 2003). This research only has a small number of case projects available since important project coor-dinators (project managers) were no longer working for the company and because the number of projects using CP is still limited. A RL is not yet used in any project in the company. Case studies offer the chance to perform a holistic intensive in-depth exploratory study of the ob-served problems. They allow unidentified issues to surface by using unstructured interviews with open-ended questions. Furthermore case studies offer the opportunity to include personal observations and statements from company documents. Procedures and criteria for a strategic case selection have been made and are presented in section 3.6.

Huisman Equipment

Theory

Recommendations

Figure 3: Normative framework of research question

Suitability of the case study method


10

Yin gave an overview (see Figure 4) of the reasons for the selection of the best applicable empirical research method. Based on this, the case study method was chosen since:

• The reasons for conflicts are unpredictable and need to be explored, and what needs to be tested is relatively unknown and can be seen as a ‘how’ or ‘why’ question

• Behaviour cannot directly, precisely and systematically be influenced since the be-haviour and reasons are unknown

• The research focuses on contemporary events (projects) of active project managers. Next to studying historical data, this adds two sources of evidence, namely direct ob-servation of evens being studied and interviews with involved people.

Figure 4: Relevant situations for different empirical research strategies (source: Yin, 2003, fig 1.1)

3.2 Case#study#topic#outline#

The three research questions specified in 1.5 are designed to explore the conflicts on PM im-plementation through interview questions. The scope of the research is limited to CP and RL. These two management processes will create more tangible phenomena for the interviewees. Interpretational possibilities of the cross-case analysis will also increase since this focus on specific PM tools will make it easier to compare the different outcomes with each other. The-se two uniform PM tools are especially interesting since one (risk log) is non-existing as a formal PM tool at present while the other (central planning) has only recently been imple-mented. The research questions embody the elements that will be explored in the interviews. These elements can be visualised in Figure 5, where the research questions can be traced back with the letters a, b, c and number 1. These elements are: (a) the potential benefits of PM practices in comparison with (b) the current work culture of the company. Then the desired fit-for-purpose PM practices (1). Finally the exploration of the (c.) obstacles that are perceived to obstruct fit-for-purpose PM implementation. All resulting in what might create more project success.

Propositions for case studies


11

Figure 5: Visual model of the connections between the case study questions and elements

After exploring the case study elements with semi-structured interviews, the arguments that are relevant for the different study elements are filtered-out, grouped and marked with a respondent code in Appendix II: Long list interview statements. A cross-case analysis (see Appendix III: Cross-case Matrix) will examine the resemblances of the project cases (re-spondents) in chapter 4. After this a reflection will be made with existing literature to draw lessons from the case findings in chapter 5. These findings aim to improve our knowledge on conflicts when implementing formal PM in organisations.

3.3 Multiple#embedded#research#design#for#the#case#studies#

This research will use a multiple embedded research design (Figure 6).

The research design

Case study aim


12

Figure 6: Multiple embedded research design with Huisman project cases as unit of analysis. Adapted from (Yin, 2003)

The projects of Huisman Equipment form the unit of analysis. Each interviewee is a unit em-bedded in this project context. Each project manager is responsible for some of these projects while the departments are often involved in all projects, as also shown in Figure 9. This re-search will analyse multiple cases to explore topics that need further empirical research and do not have a clear theory to test as yet. This because the research is not testing a clearly for-mulated theory but is exploring fit-for-purpose PM implementation. These multiple project cases create replication logic with the opportunity to test effects of the elements (Figure 5) on multiple project cases (Yin, 2003). The project managers will all have worked on different projects while the majority of the department managers and project controllers have often been involved in all projects. The multiple projects will have repetitive as well contrasting features. Repetitive since multiple interviewees will be involved in the same projects. Con-trasting since some projects will have different characteristics to be researched. Especially interesting will be to explore the entrepreneurial characteristics of projects as independent variable of successful PM implementation (see Figure 5). The case study will be embedded and not holistic (Yin, 2003) since the research not only ex-plores the project managers as embedded units in the project context but also multiple other department heads. The first embedded unit of analysis within the project context will be the project managers of the individual projects cases. In consideration with those project manag-ers the other embedded units of analysis, the departments to be interviewed will be chosen after the first interviews, see Figure 7. Other embedded units of analysis are important since uniform PM methods are used company wide and its successful implementation will likely depend on more than only the project managers. It is likely that at least some department managers (DM) and project controllers (PC) will be interesting to interview on the project cases.


13

3.4 Case#study#protocol##

The case study protocol in Figure 7 shows the successive steps taken for the interviews. The step of analysing interview results will be described in more detail in section 3.7 and is visual-ized in Figure 11

Figure 7: Case study process

3.5 CaseLstudy#interview#questions##

The core of the evidence consists of the answers collected with ten, cross department, semi-structured interviews. The interview questions are put in the interview protocol (Appendix IV: Interview protocol (in Dutch)). The interview protocol has been designed in line with previ-ously described visual model (Figure 5). This visual model is presented differently below in Figure 8, to show the logic and the numbers that correspond to the categories used in the in-terviews and are documented in the Appendix IV: Interview protocol (in Dutch). The inde-pendent variables are assumed to be controllable by the company whereas the extraneous var-iables are seemingly non-controllable, since they are rooted in the characteristics company.

Interview ques-tion logic


14

Figure 8: Logical model to get to interview question

3.6 Case#&#interviewee#selection#

The case (projects) and interviewee selection is closely related. Project managers usually manage one project at a time while department managers, project controllers and the COO are involved with all or multiple projects simultaneously, as shown in Figure 9. CP as well as RL are influenced by several departments. Therefore we asked the project managers which de-partments influence these PM methods the most. Interviewing multiple departments and pro-ject managers on the same project accords with the recommendation by Verschuren & Doorewaard that for exploratory research with little knowledge it is better to find reasonable similar projects because observations could otherwise be influenced by differences in the cas-es (Verschuren & Doorewaard, 2010). However, for the effects of the extraneous variable “entrepeneurial culture & product characteristics” (see (4) in Figure 8), we also wanted to explore the different project types in Huisman Equipment. The criteria for selection of the project managers and departments are discussed in the next two sub paragraphs 3.6.1 & 3.6.2.

Interview se-lection logic


15

Figure 9: Indication of interview quantity, interview rounds and their relation to research units (projects)

3.6.1 Selection"criteria"

The research benefits from focussing on ongoing projects of active project managers over e instead of past projects, adds two new sources of evidence, namely direct observation of events and interviews with the people involved (Yin, 2003). These two sources of evidence could be very valuable, even the more so because of the importanve of the company culture and its work culture for the this research which is better observable among active employees. Selection criteria 1 of the following considered selection criteria, is therefore seen as the most important one:

1. Likelyhood to interview responsible project manager 2. Difference in product type 3. Experience in Huisman Equipment & overall work experience 4. Affecting CP practises

Selection criteria 2 is taken into consideration because of the fact that for the entrepeneurial culture & product characteristics, see Figure 8 we wanted to explore the different project types in Huisman Equipement. Selection criteria 3 is chosen because of the possible awareness by the interviewee of company culture (variable 5 see Figure 8). Criteria 4 is chosen to select the department heads to be interviewed; the deparment heads to be interviewed are selected together with the project managers to be interviewed.

3.6.2 Selection"procedure"

The full list of chosen interviewees is shown in the beginning of the next chapter 4. First the project managers were chosen. To select the project managers a long list of all active and finished projects was made with the names of all responsible project managers (annex: Project long list of active PM’s 03/’13).

Interview se-lection criteria

Interview se-lection proce-dure


16

There are 8 project mangagers in Huisman Equipment. Two are experienced project managers but not from Huisman Equipment itself since they are hired in for a specific project and therefore have no experience with other Huisman Equipment projects. The other 6 managers are presented in the Annex: Project long list of active project managers. Robert Jansen is member of my graduation committee and therefore is excluded as candidate for the preliminary interviews as he could have biased views. Another one is not a full-time project manager and is excluded because of his limited availability. Leaving four project managers out of which 3 are chosen because they scored the best on the difference in product type, experience in Huisman Equipment and overall work experience Product types in Huisman Equipment primarily consist of drilling, pipe lay and crane projects that are evenly distributed among the three chosen project mangagers whereas the department heads are involved in all the projects. Differences in product type is therfore a selection criteria (variable 4 see Figure 8). The project managers were asked in the interviews which departments were most influencing the successful functioning of CP practices. This revealed that almost all were affecting CP and therefore six deparment heads and the COO are chosen to be interviewed. The full list is presented in Figure 10.

Figure 10 Department, code & corresponding interviewee

3.7 Collecting#the#evidence#

The chain of evidence in Figure 11 presents an overview of which inputs are used, the results of the inputs, and how the analyses generate conclusions. The evidence to explore the elements is mainly collected by metyhod of semi-structured interviews and supported with company documents, and the results of direct observations during my stay at the project management department throughout the period of my internship.


17

Figure 11: Chain of evidence, based on (Yin, 2003)

This chapter described why explorative semi-structured interviews have been chosen as re-search methodology and how the research is designed to arrive at valuable conclusions. The next chapter describes the ten interviews.


18

4 Case%study%interviews%"The previous chapter discussed the question of why exploratory case studies were chosen, how they were developed and on what criteria the respondents for the interviews have been chosen. This chapter describes how the exploratory interviews were executed, analysed and presents some of the conclusions derived from them. The 10 interview results have been recorded in audio and summarized (in Dutch) in telegram style in the same style as the interview protocol format in 10 Annexes (Interview summary date & (respondent code)). The respondents’ codes originate from the selection procedure in 3.6. The outcomes of interviews have been send to the respondents for review. The interview output from all 10 interviews has been put in a long list to sort the apparent most interesting statements. The statements that seem most interesting have been put in matrix in the Appen-dix III: Cross-case Matrix to get more insight in how statements align and differ between respondents. Based on the cross-case matrix the most important conclusions are presented in section 4.2 for Central Planning (CP) and in section 4.3 for Risk Log (RL). The reflection of the COO on all interviews is found in section 4.4. But first we will give a brief introduction of the respond-ents in 4.1.

4.1 Introducing#the#respondents##

The descriptions of the responses are given here to get an insight in the general attitude and working circumstances of the respondents as this might have become less transparent after the interpretation and deduction done for the cross-case statements. Every sub-paragraph de-scribes the responses of the 10 interviewees.

4.1.1 Sales"

The department head of Sales is one of the veteran em-ployees in the company, with 35 years of experience in Huisman Equipment. As Sales department head he is in-volved in almost all projects. He admits not directly using CP himself but only after consultation with the COO for new projects. In his opinion company growth has caused cross-departmental communication to become more difficult. In addition to this he experiences a clear wish for infor-mation for his department from other departments. To improve cross-departmental communication he seems inclined to think that informal communication should be restored and he is much less enthusiastic about PM methods, since he assumes that these require additional reporting efforts. He fears that the latter would lead to a

further bureaucratization of and within the company.

Code ID S

Job in project Head Sale (20 year)

Employment in Huisman

35 year

Current func-tion

35 year

Education Mechanical engineering HBO

Age -

Interview re-sults


19

4.1.2 Engineering""

With over seventeen 17 years of work in Huisman Equipment, of which 4 years as current head of Engineer-ing and 8 years of project management, this respondent is a very experienced Huisman employee. As head of the Engineering department he is involved in almost all pro-jects. In his previous function as project manager he has gained experience with different planning initiatives by different department heads. One of these initiatives did contain a better linkage with the up-to-date progress on level 3 planning. Although he sees the benefits of current CP planning he also expresses that the absence of this linkage being an important gap in current CP design.

Code ID E

Job in project Head Engineer-ing (4year)

Employment Huisman

17 Incl. 8year project manager

Current func-tion

4 years

Education Mechanical engineering TU Delft

Age 41


20

4.1.3 Supply"chain"

The head of the Supply chain departments is employed in Huisman Equipment for about 2,5 years and he has 8 years of previous experience in a similar function in oth-er companies. As Supply chain head he is involved in most of the projects by Huisman Equipment. Although he recently experiences more structured work proce-dures, mainly with projects recently started, he exhibits surprise of the unstructured nature of the general way of working that characterizes Huisman Equipment in his view. In addition to this he states CP is really the first of much needed cross-departmental processes. Although recognizing that current CP planning creates improved company overview, he also perceives clear needs for fur-

ther improvements, especially in more insight in up-to-date progress reporting on level 3 pro-duction schedules. However, this should be part of a continuous improvement process just as any other much needed cross-departmental process that should be created in the future.

4.1.4 Production"

The head of Production holds this function for 20 years of a total of 35 years in Huisman Equipment. He recog-nizes the need for CP to create insight in dependencies between departments. The department does all it can to stick to CP schedules, however it appears to be difficult because of delays from other departments or external delays that are not under the control of Huisman employ-ees. The department uses its own level 3 schedules to guide the activities of the department since the CP is not adequate for this. The most serious shortcoming of CP concerns the alignment between departments, which is much needed to get a more accurate and by everyone accepted CP. More acceptance and thus less arguing on CP will create a better possibility for project managers to control CP.

Code ID Sc

Job in project Head Supply Chain

Employment Huisman

2,5 year

Current func-tion

10,5 year

Education HTS, NBA

Age 51

Code ID Pr

Job in project Head Produc-tion

Employment Huisman

35

Current func-tion

20


Age -


21

4.1.5 Test"&"commissioning""

With 17 years of experience in Huisman Equipment, and 4 years as current head of Test & commissioning this respondent is a very experienced Huisman employee. He understands the current CP design and supports it out of professionalism but believes that, if employees were all honest, they would agree the current CP design has low added value for employees in project execution itself. More up-to-date schedules are needed although it is un-derstandable that the COO believes they should stay fixed to keep people to deadlines.

4.1.6 Project"manager"p1""

Project description CP is just getting introduced but most of the planning was done individually before. The crane that is installed by Huisman Equipment is an offshore mast-crane with deep-water hoist abilities. Huisman Equipment is relatively experienced in cranes, including mast cranes. Respondent This project manager has 6 years of experience in Huis-man Equipment. He is also the central contact in the de-partment but not as department head because nobody seems to hold the position of department head. With 6 years this project manager is the second most experi-enced project manager still working at Huisman Equip-ment. He thinks that current CP results in a better com-pany overview but is of the opinion that there was better control over projects before.

Code ID T

Job in project Head test & commissioning

Employment Huisman

17

Current func-tion

4

Education MTS + addi-tional diplomas

Age 41

Vessel Ezra

Function mast Crane

Start - end 2010- current

CP status Getting intro-duced

Code ID p1

Job in project Project man-ager

Employment Huisman

6

Current func-tion

6

Education School of Innovation Sciences

Age 34

Number of pro-jects

8


22

4.1.7 Project"manager"p2"on"Aegir"

Project description Huisman Equip-ment built this Ae-gir vessel for Heerema. The Aegir was designed/ con-structed for deep pipe laying. Huis-man Equipment offered Heerema the innovative Multi-Purpose Tower (MPT). The MPT is unique in the indus-try because of its high capacity as well as its multi- pipe-lay possibilities. The MPT offers a 800mt Reel-lay, a 2.000mt J-lay and 3.000mt portable reels. This is the third MPT produced by Huisman Equipment. These three MPT’s are the first on the market offering a unique op-portunity for Huisman Equipment to display and rein-force its leading position in highly innovative pipe-lay solutions. Respondent This project manager works at Huisman Equipment for 2 year and 4 months. When he arrived he took over the Aegir project from a different project manager when the production was almost half way done. At the start of his project the current COO did not yet introduce CP within the company. At this time CP is used, as well as a per-sonal introduced project planning system.

Vessel Aegir

Owner Heerema

Function Pipe-lay

Start - end Oct.’10 – current

Project in-volvement

Jan. ‘11 – in progress

Code ID p2


Employment Huisman

2 1/3 year Project man-agement

Current func-tion

+-10 year (including other compa-nies)

Education Mechanical engineering TU Eindho-ven

Age 50

Number of pro-jects

This is the first one.


23

4.1.8 Project"manager"p3"on"Globetrotter"2"

Project description Huisman Equip-ment built the Globetrotter 2 ves-sel for Noble drill-ing. Globetrotter 2 is designed for deep-ocean drilling. The Multipurpose Drilling tower of Huisman Equipment is highly innovative since it entirely innovated the former way of drilling. Huisman Equip-ment is the only company installing this drilling equip-ment and this is the fourth time Huisman Equipment in-stalled such this Multipurpose-drilling tower on a ship. Respondent This project manager is the most experienced project manager in Huisman Equipment. When he arrived he took over the GT2 project from a different project man-ager. During his arrival CP was introduced in the compa-ny and the project.

4.1.9 Planning"

This planner is working for Huisman Equipment for 9 months. He was recruited for the planning department. He vouched reservations about expressing his opinion because he does not know Huisman Equipment well enough for making a good evaluation. He explains that the current CP design originates from the former head of planning who recently (1 month ago) left the company. The former head implemented CP at the time of introduc-tion of the new COO. In his opinion not changing the CP schedules is considered a hot topic among employees. He has the opinion that you should keep CP fixed as long as possible but at the moment it might be too fixed. Chang-

ing CP schedules when really necessary would improve CP acceptance among employees. Furthermore he thinks that his young age might raise resistance among the employees against the planning..

Vessel Globetrotter 2

Owner Noble drilling

Function Project man-ager

Start - end August 2010 – March 2013

Code ID p3


Employment Huisman

12 year Pro-ject manage-ment

Current func-tion

23 year


Age 51

Number of pro-jects

Code ID P

Job in project CP Planner

Employment Huisman

9 moths

Current func-tion

9 moths

Education TPM TU delft

Age 26


24

As for the interview about the RP part he does not consider himself knowledgeable enough about risk tools and the organization to answer the questions. However, he does believe plan-ning itself could be further improved with more risk consideration in order to make more ade-quate flout estimations of tasks.

4.1.10 COO"

This COO started working for Huisman Equipment 2,5 years ago. Getting company overview with uniform CP has been one of his priorities. To facilitate the introduc-tion of CP the COO employed an experienced planner, who became the boss of the planning department and introduced CP in 2 years, after which he left the compa-ny, only a month ago. Currently the CP fulfils its goal satisfactorily, the execu-tion of the CP depends on employees who are able to meet deadlines and this is continuously improving. The COO realizes that he is one of the few who thinks that CP schedules should stay fixed. He e is very much con-vinced that this is the best option for the organization and is willing to explain this to everyone.

4.2 CrossLcase#conclusions#CP##The conclusions from this matrix have been put in a six, level 3, sub paragraphs (like 4.2.1) that correspond to the categories in the Appendix III: Cross-case Matrix. These categories are:

- prerequisites and needs, - current situation, - innovation influences, - culture, - shortcomings, - barriers.

These categories were defined to structure the findings. Although these categories do indeed help to provide a structure, the results will also show that some of the categories are overlap-ping and mutually related. This can also be partly seen in some of the references to other par-agraphs in the text. For the present moment the statements were kept as close as possible to the phrasings by the respondents to preserve their authenticity whereas the next chapter will reflect on the general opinion of most respondents. This section will discuss the cross-case conclusions for CP, whereas section 4.3 will discuss the cross-case conclusions for RL. The level 4 sub paragraphs (like 4.2.1.1) relate to topics deduced. The codes of these topics can be traced back in the Appendix III: Cross-case Matrix where they are further explained.

4.2.1 Prerequisites"and"needs"

4.2.1.1 More'CP'acceptance''The Sales department indicates that they only use CP indirectly via COO. All other depart-ments already use it but also indicate that acceptance of CP could be further improved. In the opinion of two project managers’ cultural change is needed in the company to get CP fully

Code ID C

Job in project COO

Employment Huisman

2,5 year

Current func-tion

14 year

Education HTS Eco-nomic Busi-ness school

Age 54


25

accepted. Acceptance by the departments seems important because all respondents that use CP express that successful CP requires a culture where inputs from all departments is provid-ed.

4.2.1.2 More'insight'in'up5to5date'time'estimates''The fixed and never changing character of CP is perhaps the most discussed and controversial subject surrounding CP in the company. Most people understand the view of the COO in not chancing the CP, especially those working in the planning department. They argue that not changing the planning estimates is needed to create a culture where people live up to planning schedules, and break with the company culture to adjust schedules to circumstances. However all believe that the present situation in which planning estimates cannot be adjusted is too strict. Except for the Sales department all other departments agreed that CP does not give suf-ficient insight into up-to-date, or changed time estimates. Most departments, including the planning department, have indicated that adjusting the CP to changes is needed at least for delays caused by external factors. Extraneous factors that cannot be controlled by company employees, like sub-contractors not living up to contracts or ships not arriving in time. The Supply chain department expresses that changes in planning are important to be known, as well for the planning department, and should be the responsibility and decided upon by the planning department. Because the planning department never changes the CP time estimates, it now happens that the other departments have to find alternative ways to acquire the infor-mation needed.

4.2.1.3 More'correct/accurate'CP'All departments want more accuracy in CP. One project manager claims that cross-departmental verification and confirmation of correct planning is one of the most important things still needed. This need for departmental confirmation on CP accuracy was also openly expressed by the Engineering, Supply chain, Production and Test & commissioning depart-ments.

4.2.1.4 More'input'on'CP'from'different'departments'All project managers stress the importance of more input from the different departments on CP except for the sales department, the only department not directly using CP themselves. Officials from the Production and Planning department are of the opinion that standard tem-plates could help to improve this input. All project managers think that a change in culture is needed, and that giving input on CP is part of this culture. The matter of culture will be further discussed in 4.2.4

4.2.2 Current"situation""

4.2.2.0 Full'CP'was'introduced'only'recently'and'resulted'in'various'improvements'All project managers acknowledge that CP was only fully applied in recently started projects. Supply chain and Planning officials recognize that only recently started project have fully integrated CP and because of this now exhibit progress in project execution. Noteworthy might be the observation that all former project managers, who did not agree with current CP, have been replaced over the last 3 years. The most frequently mentioned advantage of CP is increased company overview in planning because of uniform project schedules involved. Most informants said they understand and


26

respect the way CP is designed and that it has additional value especially for the COO for overview and control purposes. As such it is mentioned by some to be a good KPI tool. At the same time it became clear from the interviews that people want to see CP function differently. And some indicate if people were fully honest they would be much less satisfied with CP, although they respect the COO’s choice.

4.2.2.1 CP'is'not'changed'under'any'circumstance''All department heads state CP planning is not changed under any circumstance, which is in contradiction with the need for more insight into up-to-date time estimates (4.2.1.2)

4.2.2.2 CP'needs'cultural'change'Several statements indicate there is a need for cultural change so as to get the CP working as wanted. As said, this need for cultural change will also be discussed in 4.2.4. on the basis of answers to in-depth questions on culture in the interviews. The following statements indicate the need for change in culture as expressed during the interviews while the topic of culture was not specifically mentioned. One project manager noted that there is a gap between the work culture needed for CP and the existing work culture. Another project manager who said that there is some resistance from departments to provide needed input for CP expressed simi-lar feelings. The Engineering and Supply-chain departments do agree that the organization needs to get used to a culture where deadlines are met. The planning department, on the other hand, argues that employees do not like CP because they might feel controlled. Noteworthy is the Sales department stating not to be using CP directly in the way the COO is doing, whereas the other departments hold the view that input to CP from this department would have added value. The Sales department notices a general demand for more infor-mation from its department by other departments, but assigns more priority to other work.

4.2.2.3 More'effort'required'for'insight'in'up5to5date'CP'progress'' Project managers clearly indicated that more efforts are required to get the input needed from departments with respect to the CP progress. Two of them indicate that these CP schedules are regularly not met and therefore the input from departments is more than needed to manage projects. The production department also claims that CP schedules are often not met. The same holds for the Test and commissioning department which is especially affected by not meeting CP schedules as they are at the end of the project, chronologically speaking. The need to get more information on delays in CP schedules can already be deduced from the demand for more insight into up-to-date time estimates in 4.2.1.2. Each of the three respondents (a project manager, Engineering and Testing & commission-ing) who are in the organization for a long period feel that they have to make more effort now in finding information on up-to-date progress than was the case in the past. They ex-press the need to improve this with CP or another information system. In their opinion there have been planning methods in the past that fulfilled this need better than today. The Supply chain department confirms that too much effort has to be made to learn about the up-to-date progress in CP planning.

4.2.3 Innovation"influences""

4.2.3.1 The'influence'of'innovation'on'CP'is'determined'by'the'amount'of'repetition'Most respondents seem to agree on the influence of innovation on products. They recognize that innovative products have an impact on the rest of the industry. For the company itself all


27

respondents agree the complexity for the organisation is mainly determined by the amount of repetition of components from previous delivered products. The company predominantly pro-duces three products that have a lot of the same building parts. Their size and functionality differ much, which strongly affects the amount of repetition and the complexity for the com-pany itself.

4.2.3.2 CP'is'easier'for'products'with'lot'of'repetition''Departments all seem to agree that CP is easier for products with a lot of repetition. Two product managers explicitly stated that with more repetition a more standardized CP could be created. The need for more standardization within production processes in general is com-monly felt by employees, particularly those of the Sales department.

4.2.3.3 'Innovative'products'might'need'more'CP'Head Production mentions CP should not obstruct innovative creativity by restricting work freedom. Aside from this people generally seem to believe that innovative products require a good functioning CP the more so because monitoring and planning progresses are getting more important. Fully standardized products also need a CP but this is less complex while the monitoring of progress also becomes less important.

4.2.4 Culture"

4.2.4.1 Island'culture'in'departments'''The term island mentality was often used in the interviews and recorded in company docu-ments and in daily conversations in the company. Problems with and the need for CP because of the influence of this island mentality is reflected in some of the following statements. The planning department states that personnel has problems seeing mutual connections be-tween tasks of different departments. This is, for example, clear from statements by the Sales department, stating that it is difficult to understand why engineering hours go up. The same holds for Testing and commissioning, personnel mentioning miscommunication, confusion and difference in opinions between departments on same products as part of current company culture. Supply chain personnel mentions a complete lack of cross-departmental processes, while CP is a typical method where this is needed. CP is typical for a cross-departmental process and for it to function properly people working in planning and project management believe that departments should provide inputs to CP. In addition to this, the engineering department points at the importance of consensus and com-mitment of departments with regard to the planning of communications with the clients. Pro-ject management and Planning department, on the other hand, state that people now need to be actively monitored and that departments do not give enough input on CP progress sched-ule. The Production and Testing and commissioning departments believe that the best functioning project managers are the ones who very actively monitor planning (especially the manager of the third project studied). They confirm the need for active monitoring in order to find out up-to-date task progress. Some respondents mention impactful decisions are often made fast by top management or veteran employees in the company, to which the whole organization has to adapt. This can be efficient but also frustrating for people trying to work and decide more structured and united. Within different departments there are signs that newcomers are not easily accepted. The planning department states they might be less accepted because they are young and inexperi-


28

enced in the company. The Supply-chain department mentions that the young and inexperi-enced employees of the planning department might reduce acceptance of CP. This is empow-ered by Testing & commissioning stating that employees, already a long time working in the firm, have more support and respect within the company.

4.2.4.2 Work'culture'with'a'high'level'of'freedom'All department heads are in agreement that the company has a work culture with a relatively high level of freedom; the Supply-chain department even finding this relative freedom alarm-ing. Within this free work culture there are signs that CP is not well accepted, as discussed in 4.2.1.1. Some project managers hold that people should work more according to schedule with less freedom. Testing and commissioning, however, indicates that keeping work freedom has always been highly valued within the organization. In addition to this, the Supply-chain head notes that employees feel more comfortable with the free work culture as task respon-sibilities are more diffuse. While transparency in task responsibilities is considered to be nec-essary, the Supply-chain head believes that task responsibilities might be restrained by a ‘burn-down culture’ not used to giving compliments and therefore people like to expose their responsibilities. One project manager alleges that input is restrained because of the prevailing culture in which people prefer working informally. But the present size of the company can’t provide suffi-cient overview anymore in an informal way. The Sales department exemplifies this preference for informal work methods. Sales states that reporting through formal procedures is generally felt as unwanted. Communication should stay as informal as possible within the organization, as the organization already feels a growing, but unwanted, bureaucratization.

4.2.4.3 CP'initiatives'The three most established respondents pointed out that this CP is not the first CP initiative. They (1 project manager, Engineering and Testing & commissioning) felt that the previous CP had a better interconnection with the level 3 planning and therefore better insight into up-to-date progress. While in section 4.2.1.1 it was already observed that acceptance of current CP could be im-proved. People from Planning believe that resistance is decreasing, whereas the head of the Testing and commissioning department believes the vision of the COO is now respected and understood as KPI for management. But he, as well as the organization, do not see much add-ed value in their own work if they were honest. The planning department further alleges that that all project managers who did not agree with the current CP have been replaced. Supply chain does state that for CP to be accepted as part of the company culture it needs to be im-plemented relatively dominantly however at the same time to have them accepted feedback also has to be respected.

4.2.4.4 The'role'of'project'managers'Almost all departments accord an important role to project managers in CP for projects to be executed adequately. This finds support in statements by Testing and commissioning that pro-ject managers should take care that employees perform their tasks within the scheduled time; Engineering stating that project managers should have a feel for aligning project teams to CP; and supply chain stating that they have an important role in showing task dependencies and in keeping the project team together. The individual qualities of project managers are deemed important for structured project execution. Testing & commissioning agree that project man-


29

agers are important but that departments should not use this as excuse for neglecting to take measures that would improve their internal organization. Several departments state that the acceptance of project managers depends on their individual qualities and that these qualities strongly differ between the individual project managers. Supply chain and Production state that project managers should work with more uniform pro-cedures in their departments. By that, employees would know better what is expected from them. The project manager who is generally seen as most successful by different respondents hap-pens to be a project manager who very actively monitors tasks. At the same time some say that although this active monitoring of tasks fits current company culture, it requires too much energy. Instead important input (information) on task progress should be reported to project managers. Several persons mentioned that not all of the project managers are fully accepted. This was confirmed by a project manager stating that the track record of a project manager is important in order to get fully accepted.

4.2.5 Shortcomings"

Shortcomings and barriers are pragmatically chosen to categorize results in the cross-case matrix and this chapter; barriers are defined as obstacles preventing change, while shortcom-ings are defined as deficiencies preventing to overcome the barriers.

4.2.5.1 Presenting'CP'goals'and'their'reasons''Several statements suggest that a better CP presentation could have helped getting wider ac-ceptance for CP among employees. This is reflected in a project manager’s statement that the potential benefits of CP have not been presented clearly enough to the company’s employees. The Supply chain and Sales officers expressed a similar opinion.

4.2.5.2 Accuracy'in'CP'work'orders'&'Accessible'insight'into'delayed'time'estimates' As was noted in sections 4.2.1.2 & 4.2.1.3 accuracy in CP work orders and accessible insight into delayed time-estimates is regarded as one of the serious shortcomings of current CP. Sales officers admit that they use CP information only indirectly via COO because an accu-rate system granting access to resource planning is as yet non-existing.

4.2.5.3 More'reliable'task'estimates''There seems to be a lack in quality of CP input. A project manager stating that employees need to get more adequate and reliable estimates needed for their work. The production man-ager notes that the organization has to get used to delivering on demand instead of delivering as much technical information as possible. Production, Supply-chain and Planning departments did agreed that input from the depart-ments, including their own, might be better if input templates were designed more adequately. Supply chain states one of the biggest problems of task input is that responsibilities are left unspecified and there should be an authorization matrix to be able to know who is responsible for what task.

4.2.6 "Barriers"

4.2.6.1 Alignment'on'CP'As discussed in 4.2.1.3 there appears to be a demand for a more accurate CP. Not aligning CP building orders with departments singled out by project management, constitutes an important


30

obstacle for successful CP implementation. This alignment of departments is all the more im-portant given the observation of Test and commissioning that the organization expects too much from project managers in making CP successful.

4.2.6.2 Presenting'goals'for'CP'Inadequate presentation of the goals for CP appears to form a barrier as project management is of the opinion that there has been inadequate presentation of the benefits and instruction on how to use CP. The importance is exhibited by Sales, expressing that demonstrating and con-vincing people of the added value of extra administrative work is very important for the com-pany. As well that the working freedom is considered more important for skilful people than fully pre-structured work. Supply chain singles out the importance of uniform working proce-dures for the organization as a whole, as long as cross-departmental procedures are non-existing and very much needed.

4.2.6.3 'Displaying'commitment'to'CP'by'management'as'a'whole'As mentioned in 4.2.4.3 this was not the first attempt to introduce CP. A project manager and the head Testing and commissioning were afraid that failure in displaying commitment to CP by the entire management could hamper CP acceptance in the organization.

4.2.6.4 'Failure'to'meet'the'expectations'of'project'managers''In 4.2.4.4 it was explained why the organization accords an important role to project manag-ers. At the same time it looks like project managers do not yet meet the expectations of eve-rybody. This is reflected in the statements of all project managers that project managers are not easily accepted in the organization. Testing and commissioning further believes that the project management department is not yet as strong as the company would want it to be. Fur-thermore the Engineering department states that project managers should rely on the respon-sibilities of other disciplines, indicating another expectation on the role of project managers.

4.2.6.5 Resistance'against'CP''It seems a reasonable assumption that resistance against CP is regarded a sensitive subject, which is also clear from the head Testing & commissioning stating that people might profess acceptance of CP but are less satisfied with it in reality. Very likely not everybody feels free to express his objections to CP. Yet there are several signs of resistance such as Sales stating that skilled people have no need for structured work procedures, but need instead work free-dom and trust in doing their jobs. Production thinks that more efforts need to be done for get-ting CP accepted, which implies that some resistance has to be overcome. Young and inex-perienced planners in particular might feel resistance against CP and the Planning department, according to Supply chain, Testing & commissioning and Planning department.

4.2.6.6 The'lack'of'a'transparent'company'structure''The lack of a transparent company structure (WBS,PBS etc..) was explicitly mentioned by Planning as an obstacle to a properly functioning CP. Supply chain, on the other hand, holds that CP is hampered by the variation in coding and numbering used by the departments. Another way to clarify the company’s structure is by means of templates which are thought to increase inputs to CP (seemingly needed, see 4.2.1.4) by the departments of Production and Planning.


31

4.3 CrossLcase#conclusions#RL#

Planning stated not having enough knowledge of the company to reflect on its ideas about a RL for the company, but it did say that planning itself has much potential for improving the current risk considerations.


4.3.1.1 Advantages''All project managers agree that some form of RL could improve project success. Project managers envisioned advantages such as better introduction of projects to new colleagues, better evaluation of projects, better alignment of different project phases, better insight infor-mation into task priorities and improved float estimations in planning. Engineering held that the usefulness of RL is to be found in the function as a tool for project management and in better prize versus risk considerations. All other departments except Sales exhibited positive feelings towards a RL. Sales does not see added value in a formal risk procedures or any other formal PM methods and was in favour of informal work procedures.

4.3.1.2 Cross5departmental'communication'''Supply chain, Production and Test & commissioning acknowledged the importance of a RL for cross-departmental risk alignment. Engineering held that a RL should be designed in co-operation with other departments considering the cross-departmental processes. One project manager and the Supply chain department thought that RL was most needed at the beginning, especially with respects to commercial and technical risks. Additionally, it would help im-proving the communication on risks between Project management Sales and Engineering. While sales confirms the need for more cross-departmental tasks and communication, the sales department does not believe a risk log would have much added value and also thinks that risk transfer is sufficient at present.

4.3.1.3 Keep'it'simple''Although project all project managers see potential benefits in RL, two of the three managers emphasize a good RL design for Huisman Equipment would be to stay simple and not to cost too much time to use. Project managers also expect difficulties for formal procedures as the company is against more bureaucratization, something that is confirmed by the Sales depart-ment. Also Test & commissioning emphasizes the importance of a good balance between time expenditure and added value for Huisman Equipment. Engineering suggests" to" only make use of the useful parts of PM methods because the company sees bureaucracy as a bur-den. For Test & commissioning facilitating information access to systems (like ERP) is the most important way to save time and add value.

4.3.1.4 RL'needs'culture'change'and'consensus'for'acceptance'Two project managers opined that the PM methods in general require cultural change to get accepted. Supply chain support this view, while adding that a RL requires the intention to work in uniform ways and that this intention now varies between employees. Considering that resistance will always exist, Supply chain also states that PM methods need to be implement-ed without too long discussions. However to get them accepted important feedback has to be incorporated. The Test and commissioning department agrees that for uniform PM tools to get accepted, there should be consensus amongst the departments.


32

The need for uniform procedures is also felt by Test & commissioning. According to Test & commissioning a uniform risk procedure should be a standard part of the project plan. Test & commissioning also thinks that to get a RL accepted the design is less important than getting it accepted in the organization. Test& commissioning states the main reason why a RL or PM methods in general are not successful is because everything is thought of only from t a tech-nical point of view but that other types of specialized employees are needed as well. A RL that is fit-for-purpose to the organization as described by Supply chain and planning, implies implementing a RL method and an on-going evaluation and subsequent improvement.

4.3.2 Current"situation""

4.3.2.1 Current'Risk'methods' All departments agree at present there is no uniform risk tool that is used across departments. Only technical risks are measured with FMECA within the risk department. Only Sales believes that the current risk method used is sufficient. Sales uses a PowerPoint slide to discuss the most important risks with the project transfer to project management. Two project managers use self-designed risk methods. Engineering uses a risk assessment for run-ning projects, to be used within the department for training purposes. Engineering thinks that feedback on risks between departments could have added value. Production says not to use any risk reporting at all. Test & commissioning uses a self-designed risk reporting for the de-partment that works satisfactorily. The planning department uses only rough risk estimates for float (margins) in schedules, but risk methods could be used much better in the department.

4.3.2.2 Cross5departmental'risk'communication''All project managers are agreed that risks could be communicated better across departments and the Engineering supply chain, Test & commissioning and Planning have the same view. Sales mainly saw possibilities for improvement in risk integration for planning but not in risk communication between departments.

4.3.2.3 Risk'culture'The whole company exhibits signs of what is called ‘island mentality’. And as previously ob-served in CP interviews there is a complete lack of cross-departmental procedures. Supply chain claims that most departments see the need for more uniform procedures for the entire organization except for their own department. It was observed, however, that the awareness of dependencies between department tasks is increasing.

4.3.3 Innovation"influences""

The innovation characteristics as first discusses in the interview with CP in 4.2.3 of course also apply for RL. As mentioned above only Sales is not in favour of a RL. All other departments believe a RL could be of added value especially on more innovative projects.

4.3.4 RL"Culture"

Both RL and CP operate in the same company culture and it is therefore likely that the pro-vided feedback on culture also affects RL. Therefore the statements made under the heading culture in section 4.2.4, and particularly under island culture (see 4.2.4.1), free work culture (see 4.2.4.2) and the role of project managers (see 4.2.4.4) are likely to also affect RL. The same holds for the following statements as being relevant for CP.


33

All departments agree that the project execution and structure largely depends on the individ-ual project manager. A RL could be one of his tools to structure project execution. As explic-itly stated by Engineering a RL would be an important tool to forecast and steer on risks dur-ing a project.

4.3.4.1 Company'awareness'of'the'need'for'uniform'PM'methods'A risk log requires awareness in the company similar to general PM methods. All departments except Sales express this need for uniform PM awareness. Supply chain most explicitly states that the most important prerequisite for introducing a RL is convincing employees about the need for uniform work procedures in general. According to Supply chain structured work procedures would create a relaxed work atmosphere in the organization that was proud of its free work culture before. Even convening a meeting to discuss a Uniform PM design would have been instrumental in preventing people from ‘reinventing the wheel’ at the cost of un-necessary energy wastage, errors, miscommunication and mutual blaming. Production states uniform PM methods are needed to give improved insight into dependencies in projects and a RL could improve current ad hoc risk mitigations. Test & commissioning argues that all de-partments should perform similar risk reporting, which should be an essential part of the pro-ject plan. Moreover, current work freedom should be exchanged for more structured work ways. Sales has the most different opinion and seems to be least interested in uniform PM methods in general including a RL. Sales claims that cross-departmental communication is crucial and that its quality is declining. But Sales is the only department that believes that there is a good balance between bureaucratization and structure at the moment. This is borne out by the statement that skilled people do not need to document risks.

4.3.4.2 Resistance'to'bureaucratization''Resistance to bureaucratization is often recognized as a cultural aspect that might hamper structured work procedures. This point was explicitly mentioned by the project manager Sup-ply chain and mentioned in section 4.2.4.2 dealing with free work culture characteristics. The fear for resistance because of bureaucratization is most present in the Sales department. Most other departments mention instances of resistance in the company because of the felt bureau-cratization. On the other hand, they acknowledge that a certain level of bureaucratization is needed to create more structured work procedures.

4.3.4.3 Lack'of'personal'responsibility''Another cultural aspect that is often mentioned is the lack of personal responsibilities. A pro-ject manager and Supply chain mention that taking personal responsibility in the company is very important; Supply chain even states this might be more important than any other PM tool. Sales states that tasks and responsibilities seem to be pushed. Test & commissioning also notes that the company traditionally has a lack of formal responsibilities and a lot of work freedom.

4.3.4.4 Blaming'culture'A blaming culture is also indicated to be present within the company culture. Supply chain expresses that this blaming culture is a possible reason employee do not like to be seen as re-sponsible. Sales expresses this blaming culture might cause people not wanting to be held re-sponsible for mistakes. This could explain why people prefer free working methods and do not like documenting everything since it creates accountability for what you write down. A


34

RL would make you accountable for your thoughts on risks that you have and not have taken into account. The presence of a blaming culture is expressed by Sales, Engineering, Supply chain and Production.

4.3.5 Shortcomings""

Shortcomings and barriers are pragmatically to categorize results in the cross-case matrix and this chapter; barriers are defined as obstacles preventing change, while shortcomings are de-fined as deficiencies preventing to overcome the barriers. Cross-departmental input was often mentioned as essential for CP, and templates were said to be able to improve the input from departments. Although only one project manager actual-ly mentioned templates for RL it might also be interesting for CP to motivate employees to provide cross-departmental input.

4.3.5.1 Responsibility'for'introduction'As reason why a RL is non-existing it is seen important that someone is made responsible for its introduction and to start and initiate a RL or PM method. All project managers mentioned the fact that no one in the department is responsible for uniform procedures and task coordi-nation, although this need is clearly p felt. Two project managers stress the importance of the additional appointment in a project team of someone who makes a template and monitors the risks. Production states there is no resistance against a RL but that it was simply never intro-duced and also Engineering, Supply chain, and Test & commissioning mention the im-portance of someone initiating a RL and get it running.

4.3.5.2 Clear'explanation'and'Instructions'Clear explanations and instruction on RL could be one of the ways to overcome resistance against RL. One project manager stressed the importance of more instructions and more clari-fication of goals and benefits to get a PM method like RL accepted. Supply chain states that explanation of departmental interdependencies is needed in order to get uniform methods ac-cepted. Test & commissioning pointed at the necessity of this instruction and explanation, which was endorsed by Sales and Production. Test and commissioning also noted the im-portance of project managers being instructed in the use of information and knowledge avail-able in project teams and the importance of taking input seriously if they would like input to be given. One of the reasons, according to Test & commission, why risk methods are not in-troduced is the lack of knowledge in the company about risk methods.

4.3.6 Barriers"

4.3.6.1 Blaming'culture'In 4.3.4.4 we already described the presence of a blaming culture as a possible barrier. Also Production states that a blaming culture prevents people from giving input but has the impres-sion of being taken more seriously in giving input.

4.3.6.2 Fear'for'bureaucratization''In 4.3.4.2 we already described the fear for bureaucratization as element in the current culture and forming a possible barrier for RL implementation. One project manager emphasizes that every new PM method should be prevented from becoming an administrative nuisance. This


35

was confirmed by both Sales and Engineering stating that too much time is spend on adminis-trative work already.

4.3.6.3 'Lack'of'time'and'time'pressure'Not having enough time is singled out as one of the main reasons why all project managers do not adopt RL or other uniform PM methods. Supply chain and Test & commissioning also mentioned as the most important reason that nobody has enough time for initiating new meth-ods. This was already listed as shortcoming in 4.3.5.1. Sales also expresses there is not enough time but seem in any case to be against a documented risk procedure.

4.3.6.4 Awareness'of'uniform'PM'methods'for'cross5departmental'information'In 4.3.4.1 we already described the unawareness of the importance of uniform PM methods as the current culture and as a possible barrier for RL implementation. Statements that could ex-plain why this awareness is lacking concern the island mentality that is mentioned in all de-partments. As was already observed, Sales thinks that documenting risks is not needed when working with skilled people, whereas Communication favours informal procedures. Supply chain mentions the importance of sharing information with other departments but sharing is hampered by the fact that people are worried about losing work freedom. Production states that cross-departmental information sharing is regarded as a loss of power. Test & commis-sioning think that one of the reasons why RL between departments might be restrained is that departments forget that they are of no importance without the other departments and therefore they should think of the information needs of the other departments. This needed awareness to share info with departments is also stated by Supply chain. Lastly, a project manager introducing a PM tool will always experience tension between an open ear for incorporating views and opinions and a quick decision-making on introducing the PM methods. #


36

4.4 Reflection#of#COO#on#the#department#interviews#

The COO has been interviewed after all the other respondents were interviewed. Where other respondents were asked questions related to a recent specific project the COO was asked the same questions related to all projects in general. Furthermore the COO was asked some addi-tional questions that seemed interesting in the light of the outcomes of the interviews with the 9 other respondents.


4.4.1.1 Prerequisites'and'needs'The COO indicates that CP is needed as a uniform planning method that would allow for schedules giving an overview for the entire company. The COO is satisfied with how this CP is currently functioning. He says that the success of CP is ascertained if he finds it success-ful and if employees see its benefits. When the COO is confronted with the generally felt need of other departments for more in-sight information about the up-to-date time estimates the COO admits that this is a hot topic, but expresses that it is not needed to be improved with CP or any other system. Seeing how far behind schedule you are is enough information. New finishing-time estimates for task are not needed and any system that would allow for this would require such detailed input the organization is not able to provide.

4.4.1.2 Current'situation'''The COO states the CP caused people to see the urgency to produce conform to the planning and not individually deciding on what to do. With the CP there is now finally a tool to get the company’s overview of projects. Together with CP the Project management has become a leading department again. According to the COO the input from departments on estimated schedules should be improved and the company culture should get adjusted to arrive at relia-ble estimates on tasks..

4.4.1.3 Innovation'influences''The influence of innovative products on CP seems in accordance with the general opinion among other departments. The influence of innovations for the company is held to be deter-mined by the amount of repetition in products. Innovative projects should have more time during the conceptual stage and basic design, and a faster start for standard copy projects.

4.4.1.4 Culture'As was the case with other departments the COO also detects signs of an island mentality. For a fully-grown multi-disciplinary company like Huisman Equipment cross-departmental com-munication is deemed essential. Relying on informal communication makes it increasingly harder to get sufficient information. As COO points out the company is in transition from very free working practices to a situation exhibiting more structure and discipline. Previously there was no deadline culture but an engineering culture, which was good but never in time. In the process of restructuring the company the responsibilities for tasks could be documented better.


37

4.4.1.5 Shortcomings'One of the reasons why project managers feel restricted is the absence of supporting systems like ERP and break-down structures. However, the introduction of these systems takes time and efforts, but is not a panacea and should not be seen as Holy Grail.

4.4.1.6 Barriers'The island mentality is seemingly disappearing but is still seen as a barrier. One of the most serious barriers that need to be removed is the inability to estimate tasks without demanding all sorts of additional information.

4.4.2 COO"reflection"to"RL""

4.4.2.1 Prerequisites'and'needs'The COO does not see any direct or urgent need for a RL. However, if others see the need for it they should take the lead and demonstrate the added value for him to support the initiatives. Nevertheless, he admits that RL could be instrumental in improving cross-departmental communication on risks in innovative projects. He also recognized the value of RL for new employees to be introduced and learn about project risks in previous projects.

4.4.2.2 Current'situation''Currently the only known formal risk method is a long-lead-item list (for critical resource planning) that is checked against the CP. The project management department is currently too busy to appoint someone to initiate a RL or any other new uniform PM method.

4.4.2.3 Innovation'influences''A RL is perceived as the most interesting method to improve risk communication for innova-tive projects.

4.4.2.4 RL'Culture'Risks within the company are treated individually and dealt with by means of a lot of practi-cal knowledge and experience.

4.4.2.5 Shortcomings''To initiate a RL, or any other structural change, people should present the possible benefits and take initiatives to get support for it. Showing what it is, and what the benefits are for those who have to work with it is essential for convincing people. The COO believes only somebody with a lot of experience in the organization could take PM initiatives like RL. However, every experienced project manager usually is too busy with his projects.

4.4.2.6 Barriers'Some of the barriers why a RL is not yet initiated are;

- the fact that the RL methods are unknown, - people fear bureaucratization, - there are no experienced people with time to initiate these changes.

Additionally when people are not confined enough and do not want to fill in the RL them-selves it will lose a lot of quality.


38

4.4.3 Concluding"remarks"By means of this cross-case analysis an overview is given of the most noteworthy differences and similarities between the respondents with respect to a particular subjects. While the cho-sen categories were helpful in structuring the statements it also happened that it was not al-ways clear in which category statements fitted best. This chapter tried to retain the statements in their original formulation as much as possible in order not to lose too much of their authen-ticity. However it is important to realize that some statements could easily fit different catego-ries simultaneously. For example, a felt need can easily be reformulated and turned into a shortcoming, or even obstacle or barrier. The next chapter will therefore interpret the more general outcomes of the cross-case results and relate them to the research questions.

"

Conclusion


39

5 Fit!for!purpose'PM'discussion'&'reflection'on!theory"In the previous chapter 4 the cross-case conclusions were presented in 6 categories. This chapter examines the general opinion, derived from the cross-case conclusions in chapter 4, and relate this to the research questions. As well attention is paid to the opinion of an individ-ual respondent in case it differs on important issues from the general opinion of most re-spondent. When reading about this general opinion please keep in mind that project managers, depart-ment heads and project controllers were the respondents. Afterwards the COO has been inter-viewed to solicit his response on the results of the other interviews. An overview of the general opinion on PM is needed for two reasons. The first reason is to give a more comprehensive overview of the outcomes of the interviews since the previous chapter 4 only showed the 6 selected categories that helped to structure the large amount of interview data. Yet the 6 categories selected also overlap and relate to each other, and some of the remarks could fit into other categories if reformulated or viewed from a different per-spective. The other reason for this overview on the general opinion is to deal with, what de Haan & Heer call, built-in habit of solution-thinking of people (ibid.). This solution-thinking often leads to a situation that problems are not solved when many people are involved, all having different solutions in mind (ibid.). Often these solutions are proposed without stating objec-tives while these objectives are needed to understand the arguments either in favour or against certain solutions (ibid.). These arguments should be made explicit and easily accessible in order to enhance the decision-making processes that should as much as possible be based on facts (ibid.). The findings of the interviews with 10 persons of similar professional back-grounds already show that they all have different solutions in mind. The respondents also in-dicate that objectives for PM initiatives are not clearly presented in the company. This over-view of the general opinion on PM could serve as a starting point for further discussions and better decision-making within the company on PM objectives and PM solutions. Paragraph 5.1 – 5.3 will each discuss conclusions derived from chapter 4 on one of the re-search questions. These paragraphs are supported with the following appendixes that illustrate the general opinion from the respondents on the research questions;

• 5.1 with Appendix: V: Scheme for research question 1 • 5.2 with Appendix: VI: Scheme for research question 2 • 5.3 with Appendix VII: Scheme for research question 3

5.4 will discuss the validity of the research outcomes.

5.1 # Which#benefits#does#PM#potentially#offer#and#what#defines#a#PM#work#culture?#

The general opinion by the case respondents on the research question is illustrated in Appen-dix: VI: Scheme for research question 1 This goal instrument chart is made to create more overview on the perceived benefits and how goals and instruments relate to each other. This


40

goal instrument chart was made with the help of problem structuring techniques from de Haan & Heer2 (de Haan & de Heer, 2012)

The department heads interviewed give numerous reasons for why the current CP design is not fulfilling all planning potentials. This is exhibited in felt needs for planning improve-ments. Increased project coordination could be seen as one of the main goals to overcome the currently experienced unfulfilled needs. In PM literature like Meredith & Mantel project co-ordination is considered an important aim of PM: improved coordination of tasks needed to focus responsibility and authority to meet the project requirements confirming the desires of an individual or small group within an organization (Meredith & Mantel, 2010) All respond-ent seems to agree that presently there are problems in communicating important information between departments, which are probably connected with the growing size of the company. The needed changes that are most frequently mentioned and felt to be necessary for increased project coordination are:

- More cross-departmental communication - More uniform procedures - Better structured work culture - Better company overview

All interviewed project managers emphasize that the coordination of projects is thought to require an active monitoring of tasks. And confirmed by most of the department heads, ex-pressing this is, under the present culture, most likely to be successful. Most respondents and especially the project managers and the Planning department suggest that active monitoring would be less needed if there were more inputs from departments on CP. This seems to sug-gest that a more responsive coordination is called for. This accords with Meredith & Mantel stating that the organisational form and the project form should enable responsive coordination in order to focus responsibility and authority and confirm the desires of an indi-vidual or small group within the organization (Meredith & Mantel, 2010). The need to focus responsibility and authority in an organisational form that allows respon-sive coordination seems to be reflected in the, most frequently mentioned, needed changes in work culture; mentioned by respondents who are enthusiastic about the added value of PM practises to project execution. The most explicitly mentioned needed changes that seem to accord with a more responsive work culture are:

- more input from the departments on PM methods - more responsibility and transparency - and less work freedom

Some even say that this needed change in work culture is the most important and, at the same time, most difficult aspect of PM implementations. The conditions for information inputs that respondents felt to be needed for (responsive) co-ordination by project managers, with the help of PM tools, especially CP and RL, are:

1. more comparable project information, 2. more insight in task responsibilities and authorities, 3. and more insight in task progress,

2 More information on problem structuring of Haan & Heer in Appendix I: Problem focus matrix analysis

Increased coor-dination be-tween depart-ments

Responsive coordination needed

Needed respon-sive infor-mation input

More (respon-sive) PM work culture


41

4. and more insight in risks on tasks All respondents agree that the current CP design has yielded more company overview. This company overview created a more uniform planning for all projects as a result of which in-formation on different projects can be compared and combined. Previously, different plan-ning formats made it difficult to compare and combine schedules thus causing more difficul-ties and less overview on dependencies between projects and between international company divisions. Although all respondents obtain a better company overview by CP, this increased company overview is primarily seen as serving the COO’s interest as KPI control tool. The COO himself seemed to be the most satisfied respondent with current CP design. Other re-spondents say that company overview is also important to encourage company culture to be-come more deadline- driven. However the department respondents are much less enthusiastic about current CP design in serving their interests in project coordination and for their own functioning. In line with the needed insight in task progress, the respondents felt the need to gain more insight in task responsibilities. Some respondents claimed that insight in task responsibility and authority might be more important than any other PM method and that practices like au-thorization matrixes could facilitate this. CP design is highly encouraged by most department respondents but they would like to see a different planning system than the present CP. With another CP design they think that there is much more potential for project coordination with more insight in tasks progress. The insight in task progress with CP is acknowledged to be the most disputed aspect of CP. This point seems to be an important source of dissatisfaction with current CP design among most of the interviewed departments heads. The COO is one of the few who are convinced that the pres-ently used CP design gives enough insight in task progress.

The most important perceived short-coming with task progress insight re-lates to how progress is shown in the CP system, which is most easily ex-plained with the aid of Figure 12. At present the end dates of tasks are fixed and never altered, only showing how far a planned task is lagging behind. The COO is satisfied with this situa-tion. Most departments, however, would prefer to use new finish-time estimates for tasks that are behind schedule. Because this is now lacking they say that much time is needed to gather enough information for proper

coordination. Besides the need for more insight in the up-to-date finish-time estimates, more correct task sequences in CP and more input on progress in from departments are the most frequently mentioned needs for planning. At present most respondent state that CP is not providing enough information for project coordination. The lack of coordination benefits with the present CP seems to accord with the opinion of Matta & Ashkenas who state that the rea-

1. More com-parable project information

3. More insight into task pro-gress

2. More insight in task respon-sibilities and authorities

Figure 12: a. Current CP planning & b. optional task plan-ning with estimated task delay


42

son why managers use plans, timelines and budgets is to reduce execution risk, that is to say the risk of planned activities not being carried out properly (Matta & Ashkenas, 2003). RL is as yet non-existing in the company. All project managers agree that some form of RL could improve project execution. Benefits that all seem to be connected with more insight in risks on tasks are the following

- better introduction of projects to new colleagues - better evaluation of projects, - better alignment of different project phases - better insight into task priorities and improved float estimates in planning.

Engineering adds that the usefulness of RL is to be found in the function as a tool for project management and in better price versus risk considerations. All other departments except for Sales exhibited positive feelings towards a RL. Sales does not see added value in a formal risk procedure or any other formal PM methods and is in favour of informal work procedures, which he believes function better with skilled employees. Sales also adds that documenting and exchanging risk information between departments would create a situation where people don’t think of the risks anymore themselves. The success of using PM tools, especially CP and RL, in attaining the goals for improved in-formation as stated above, seems to dependent on the design of these PM systems and a sup-portive PM work culture. Respondents say of these systems that they should

- be used cross-departmental - be easy accessible - provide up-to-date information - provide accurate information - have formal characteristics

Cross-departmental processes in general seem rare in this company and some respondents even state they were non-existent before introduction of CP. The CP as it functions now was introduced around 3 years ago. A uniform risk tool like RL is currently non-existent in the company. Most seem to believe such cross-departmental processes are very important to be initiated and they believe that PM methods like CP and RL are good examples of desired cross-departmental processes. All respondents agreed on the need for better cross-departmental communication. Most re-spondents believe PM methods could help achieving this, especially by means of a well- de-signed planning method like CP, and most also believe in a RL as a valuable tool to exchange information on risks between departments. Payne mentions formal PM methods are usually desired to improve cross-functional communication (Payne, 1993). A RL and CP seem well suited under formal PM methods when subsuming it in the definition of “formal” as some-thing that has a conventionally recognized form, structure, or set of rules. This definition seems to correspond with the often mentioned needs for:

- creating more structure - developing more uniform procedures - improving cross-departmental processes - reducing work freedom

For the perceived needed work culture, project managers are accorded an important role by most of the department respondents. This role entails aligning the project team with the help

Formal PM methods have a conventionally recognized form, structure, or set of rules

4. More insight risks on tasks

PM needs sup-porting PM systems and a PM work cul-ture

Important role for project managers in coordination


43

of PM practices, like CP or RL. Meredith & Mantel underscores the importance by stating that project managers are expected to coordinate tasks with PM to align a project team (Meredith & Mantel, 2010). The respondents have indicated that this role of the project man-ager is not sufficient in itself. The acceptance and success of the project manager is thought to be dependent on:

- a wide variety of individual qualities in helping to align a project team, - the project manager’s experience within the company and - the organization knowing of what to expect from the project manager

Some departments say that more uniform project management procedures could help promote acceptance of project managers and their task. By using a conventionally recognized form that assists other employees in knowing what to expect from project managers, alike PM methods as CP and RL could provide.

5.2 What#defines#the#company#culture#and#how#does#this#relate#to#a#PM#culture?##The general opinion among the case respondents with respect to this research question is il-lustrated in Appendix: VI: Scheme for research question 2. This illustration presents an over-view of the two main perceived circumstances for the organizational change, which because of the present work culture lead to the needed PM work culture. This matter will also be dis-cussed in the paragraph below. Most of the respondents are enthusiastic about the potential benefits of more PM and CP and RL. But not all respondents are equally positive. One respondent is noticeably less enthusias-tic about CP and RL. This respondent explicitly highlights the strength of the informal charac-ter of the company and although he believes cross-departmental communication is at times insufficient he believes that informal communication should be somehow restored to its pre-vious standards. This seems to offer a first hint of the highly valued informal communication prevailing in the company’s work culture. A company work culture that most employees con-sider an important, even the most important, obstacle to successful PM implementation. This prevailing culture and the difficulties surrounding CP will be described in answering the next sub-question. The current success of the company seems to be reflected in the employee growth over the past few years. This fast growth was realized by selling highly innovative equipment for the offshore industry. The company is traditionally very good in developing innovative offshore equipment. The prevailing company’s work culture is excellent in supporting this and re-spondents say that this work culture has not changed much. The Improvement Program folder states that the professional organization has not kept up with developments that came with the growth of the company, leading to the inefficiencies and organizational misalignments commonly found in fast-growing companies (Huisman, 2012). From the interviews it appears that the organizational change & PM change is perceived as needed because of two major reasons, namely the increased company size and occurrence of more repetition in products.

1. The increased amount of employees creates difficulties with cross-departmental in-formation exchange needed for projects dependent on several departments working on a product.

Strength in innovative offshore equip-ment

Need for change in work culture

Two major reasons for a needed organi-zational and PM change culture


44

2. The increased repetition in products, caused by using more components of previously produced products requires more efficiency in the management of the production pro-cess. PM and a project management work culture are seen as a solution for this.

As mentioned before all respondents experience problems with the quality of the information exchange between departments which are believed to originate from the increased size of the company. Regarding the needed PM work culture the respondents mention various aspects relating to the need for more control in project coordination. The following information needs might best to facilitate improved control by project managers:

- More insight in task responsibilities & authority - More insight in task progress

The need for more control in growing companies is confirmed by Mintzberg, who states that bigger projects and growing numbers of employees make direct control more difficult and that analysts and project controllers require more information from functional departments in the company (Mintzberg, 2009). Huisman Equipment is widely known for constructing offshore-equipment that is seen as highly innovative within their field of industry. Several innovative products within the off-shore industry originated from Huisman Equipment and are still being invented here today. At the same time as the company grew in size, some products types brought a larger amount of repetitions in products, caused by using more components of previously produced products. The respondents unanimously agreed that the complexity of products largely depends on the amount of repetition from previously delivered products. The different main product groups have different amounts of repetition. All respondents are in favour of more standardization, especially for those products requiring a lot of repetition. Most departments believe that PM methods, like CP and RL, are easier for products with a lot of repetition. But at the same time respondents saw as well prospects for CP and RL for products that require less repetition, since these products are more complex and therefore need more coordination. Especially the possible added value of a RL is as well seen for more innovative products. Although respondents recently experienced some improvements in project execution and ini-tiatives for organizational change, most respondents state that the organization has not yet changed very much. The, by the respondents most frequently mentioned, characteristics of the prevailing work culture are

- informal communication - much work freedom - flexible work culture with impactful project decisions being made easily and

throughout the company - unstructured work culture - ad hoc decision making (day-to-day management) - strong island culture of departments - inactive changes in work culture (little PM change initiatives) - mono-disciplinary organization (mainly engineering driven)

The characteristics of the present work culture seem to differ a lot from the characteristics that are mentioned by respondents as needed for a PM work culture, as well as needed in support of PM tools, like CP and RL. The characteristics needed for a PM culture have already been discussed in 5.2. The next paragraph will discuss what is thought to hamper this change.

2. The amount of repetition from previous-ly delivered products has increased

Current work culture charac-teristics

1. Problems with infor-mation ex-change by grown compa-ny size


45

5.3 What#are#the#possible#obstacles#for#the#implementation#of#PM?##

The general opinion of the case respondents on this research question is illustrated in Appen-dix VII: Scheme for research question 3. This illustration gives an overview of the obstacles in PM implementation which can be distinguished in strategic and operational obstacles. Stra-tegic obstacles relate to managerial options that prevent PM from reaching its objec-tives/goals. The operational obstacles are the obstacles that prevent PM from succeeding in its functioning. ‘Island culture’ is the often-heard explanation for some of the organisational problems in Huisman Equipment and was also often mentioned in the interviews. But the expression ‘is-land culture’ itself does not clarify much as it does not explain the effects it has, which can be different for each individual. The ‘Island culture’ might cause similar obstacles as seen for PM implementation in this paragraph. In this perspective, island culture might relate to the felt need for improved coordination between departments in on projects dependent on several departments. Coordination seems to have become more difficult with the growth of the com-pany and caused problems with the information exchange between departments. PM methods like CPM are seen as offering a potential solution both for the problematic information ex-change between departments and defective coordination. PM implementation is however per-ceived as hindered by various obstacles, which will be discussed below.

5.3.1 Strategic"management"obstacles"""

One of the obstructions for PM implementation might be that the different product character-istics may need different management styles. One of the reasons why respondents in the case study express the need for PM, is that innovative products have obtained more repetition characteristics, creating the need for more efficiency. The literature and this case study show that different products might require different man-agement styles. Looking at the needed PM culture and the perceived PM work culture this seems to accord better with the characteristics that Martini describes as needed for exploita-tive products, which involves refinement, choice, production, efficiency, selection, implemen-tation and execution (Martini, 2013b). This while innovative products and current divined company work culture seems to accord better with the characteristics that Martini describes for explorative products, which involve search, variation, risk-taking, experimentation, play, flexibility, discovery and innovation (ibid.). Koppenjan, et al. describe control and flexibility impose contradictory requirements upon management of projects (Koppenjan et al., 2011). Looking at the case study on the one hand we see a current work culture in which flexibility is highly valued with impactful decisions being made fast and ad hoc, communication is informal & people having much work free-dom. On the other hand respondents express a needed PM culture with more insight in task responsibility, task authority and progress in order to coordinate tasks, which hint to contra-dictory control values. The current work culture seems to have more characteristics of what Martini describes as needed for explorative products and flexibility characteristics described by Koppenjan. The circumstance of products having more repetition might ask for a management style that aligns

Island culture explained

Different prod-uct characteris-tics might need different man-agement styles

Flexibility versus control

Explorative versus exploita-tive products


46

more with what Martini describes as exploitative products and with Koppenjan’s control characteristics, that seem needed for a PM work culture. Most of the respondents seem to encourage PM initiatives in general but at the same time they express dissatisfaction with the design of the current CP and express that convincing employ-ees is not easy. Respondents express that a clear presentation of the goals and a full manage-ment support are needed for better acceptance of introduced PM tools. This report presents the general opinion of respondents on which goals need to be achieved in order to benefit from PM. This might be a good starting point to discuss those goals and the PM tools that contribute to these goals. The respondents also expressed that to realise PM benefits, the re-quired PM work culture might be just as important as the design of the PM tools. Furthermore some respondents mention the importance that the full management is express-ing to be convinced of the needed changes. Since change initiatives now, are often initiated by a single manager and perceived to be temporally, making people less committed to the chang-es. Noteworthy is as well that some respondents, being in the company for a long period, feel that other and better planning methods were used under different managers in the past. These planning methods were perceived to provide a better insight in task progress than current planning. This demonstrates the influence, of changing responsible managers, in the choice of CP design. The importance of expressing these goals for PM might be demonstrated in the current CP design. Most respondents agree on the value of current CP design, increasing company over-view with more comparable uniform planning. But there seems disagreement between the COO and the respondents on current CP design, fulfilling the goal of giving more insight in task progress. Respondents express that the previous planning methods were better in provid-ing this information; with the present CP it takes the projects managers much effort to obtain needed progress information from departments, necessary for the successful coordination of tasks. If insight in task progress is a serious goal within the organization people could discuss arguments why CP does or does not contribute to this goal. Not initiating PM methods and a lack of change management is perceived as one of the most important obstacles hampering PM. Many believe, especially project managers, that uniform work procedures are not used because nobody initiates them, although they believe they are much desired. There seems to be a lack of cultural change that is reflected in the statements;

1. Nobody is responsible for implementation 2. Coordination for evaluation & improvement cycles is needed

Changes do not take place because nobody is responsible for initiating such changes and eve-rybody indicates being far too busy and therefore not having time to do so. Furthermore some people state introducing changes requires change management skills that are as yet not pre-sent in the company. This while the COO believes somebody from within the organization should initiate and take initiative for new PM methods. The COO expresses to welcome good-presented initiatives. But expresses that people at the moment are too busy with other tasks to make them responsible for changes. Nobody having time to initiate PM changes being too busy with other work, aligns with what Meredith & Mantel express: organizations often do not spend sufficient time and effort on planning and controlling projects because it is far easi-

1. Nobody responsible for implementation

Need for better presentation of goals

Lack of insight in task progress and authority in PM

Lack of change management and PM initia-tives

Need for full management support of goals


47

er to focus on ‘doing’, especially because it appears to be more effective to ‘stop all the talk’ and ‘get on with the work’ (Meredith & Mantel, 2010). Multiple respondents state that PM changes initiated should be followed-up by continuously improvement. Persons with change management skills should coordinate these continuous evaluation and improvement cycles. The need for better coordination of PM changes might also be reflected by respondent’s feedback that CP would have functioned better when the desired information from other departments would be formalized by using templates.

The definition of PM makes clear PM is dependent on the application of knowledge, skills, tools and techniques in project activities to meet the project requirements. A PM tool there-fore often is dependent of other PM practices. This was also expressed by the respondents stating other systems were needed for successful functioning of CP as a PM tool. Among the tools that were desired for better functioning of CP, ERP was often mentioned as desired. ERP often seems to be perceived as most perfect planning method, because of de-sired insight in task progress. However some also express an instrument like ERP requires a PM competence that is not yet present in the company. Another needed PM tool that was mentioned by the respondent from the planning department, and also may relate to a perceived lack of accuracy in CP, is the need for break down struc-tures. The importance of these break down structures is confirmed by Globerson, which states break down structures are essential for effective planning processes (Globerson, 1994). Looking at WBS and ERP both are non-existent in Huisman Equipment. ERP is, a complex PM method, that is often much desired but at the same time this is a tool that only seems real-istic in a distant future. Break down structures like WBS seem more realistic in the short term. Both WBS and ERP reemphasise the need to create goals for PM and discuss arguments on what is needed and achievable in defining priorities to improve PM.

5.3.2 Operational"obstacles""Respondents also give their opinions on operational obstacles that prevent successful PM im-plementation. Respondents indicated that at present there are few uniform work procedures or cross-departmental processes. Organisational changes towards PM with methods like CP and RL might alter this situation. Payne suggests that for an organization to become comfortable with PM adjusted organiza-tional structures may take many years and that resistance to chance in this direction is caused more by ‘people’ problems rather than by problems with the system (Payne, 1993). Some findings in this case study seem to confirm this. To begin with most respondents are agreed that changing work culture in accordance with a PM work culture is important, if not the most important condition for successful PM imple-mentation. Respondents realize that changing this work culture to a PM work culture is diffi-cult. For one thing because this might curtail work freedom that is highly valued in the pre-vailing work culture. Furthermore, for PM methods to be accepted by employees in the com-pany the design choices, goals and benefits need to be explained to the people who have to use these PM methods. Convincing people of the importance of uniform cross-departmental methods in general is considered essential as precisely this uniformity is held to be conflicting with the present highly valued free work culture. Another instance of ‘people’ problems ob-structing PM is the suggestion by some respondents that a blaming culture might prevent

Resistance to PM change is more related to ‘people’ prob-lems that prob-lems with the system

2. Need for coordination of evaluation & improvement cycles

Lack of sup-porting PM systems


48

people from giving input to other departments. This finds support in the statement by one de-partment head that if input given to other departments is not taken seriously or ignored, em-ployees might feel restrained in offering further inputs. Payne also suggests that mistrust and conflict between functional groups are the most com-mon problems with the introduction of formal PM, and that formal PM is needed to improve for cross-functional communication (Payne, 1993). Mistrust and conflict between functional departments are sensitive issues to be raised by respondents although there are signs of strains between functional groups. For instance, the often mentioned ‘island culture’ that is felt to be hampering cross-departmental communication and cooperation. Another sign of mistrust, as expressed by the respondents, is that the acceptance of people depends on the length of time they are working in the company, and that new functions like project managers and planners seem to be less easily accepted in the company. Some respondents observed that fear for bureaucratization is often used as an excuse by em-ployees to oppose certain change initiatives within the organization. PM methods are often associated with paper work and to conflict with the highly valued informal communication culture now prevailing. Most of the respondents seem enthusiastic about the prospect of more information being doc-umented and exchanged between departments by means of PM methods like CP and RL. One department head perceived disadvantages, particularly in documenting knowledge. This re-spondent believes documenting information is not needed for experienced employees and on-ly creates the risk that people won’t think for themselves anymore. Even if exchanging infor-mation by means of PM methods is desirable one needs to be aware of imperfections. Imper-fections that Matta & Ashkenas mention for planning methods that have the advantage of re-ducing the execution risk however will never be perfect since there will always remain a white space risk of some activities not being identified in advance by planning, thus leaving gaps in the project plan. And the integration risk when al planned activities have been execut-ed but the outcome is not delivering the intended result (Matta & Ashkenas, 2003).

The company flourished with a free work culture in which highly innovative offshore-equipment was produced. Till now the company is characterized by a free work culture, with informal communication and fast decisions being made throughout the company. Several re-spondents consider this free work culture to be an important strength of the company that should be preserved. However, this free work culture is also seen as an important barrier for the implementation of PM practices and required PM work culture. As already observed above, the needed PM work culture requires less work freedom and specifies ‘formal’ charac-teristics that seem incompatible with the prevailing work freedom, being highly valued. Polesie suggests, that especially the sense of work freedom might cause resistance for change since this change might conflict with work motivation of employees (Polesie, 2013)

5.4 PM#implementation#suggestions#

This paragraph offers some suggestions for better PM implementation within Huisman Equipment based on the outcomes of the interviews and reflection on PM literature. These suggestions are divided into two parts. The first part presents suggestions relating to the presentation of the overall need for PM implementation and change in work culture. The se-

Losing free work culture might conflict with work mo-tivation

Resistance to bureaucratiza-tion

to be aware of information imperfections


49

cond part (5.4.2.) presents conditions for change management that is perceived needed to support the implementation of PM tools.

5.4.1 Presenting"the"need"for"PM"implementation"and"a"related"PM"work"culture"

Respondents believe that a change in work culture is as important as the introduction of the PM tools itself. This sub-paragraph presents the most important arguments that could help to convince people and overcome obstacles to move towards a PM work culture. The PM work culture that is perceived as needed by the respondents requires a management style and work culture that is in some essential respects conflicting with present-day practices. This is reflected in the distinction used by some of the respondents, namely in “what is” (ist) and “what is needed” (soll) for a PM work culture; these mutually conflicting characteristics are illustrated in Appendix: VI: Scheme for research question 2. Since the current work cul-ture is highly valued by Huisman Equipment employees, the respondents stress that convinc-ing people of the importance of changing this work culture is as important as convincing them of the benefits of specific PM tools. To convince employees of the need of change in the presently existing and highly valued work culture, respondents emphasize that the goals of a PM work culture and the benefits of PM tools as described in 5.4.2 need strong advocacy, along with the explicit and full backing of the entire management staff for these goals. In connection with this PM work culture project managers are understood to have an im-portant role in improving coordination between departments with the help of PM tools. PM tools like CP and RL are examples of tools that are instrumental in this coordination. The acceptance of project managers by other employees is part of the needed change in work culture. Explicit acceptance of the role of project managers is important and could be in-creased with more uniform work procedures used within the project management department and with an explanation of the importance by project managers to achieve the goals of a needed PM work culture. The application of uniform work procedures by the project man-agement department is deemed to be important for employees because they will then know what to expect from project managers when they use the same documents, templates, excel sheets and work methods. PM tools and uniform work procedures seem to fit the definition of “formal” as something that has a conventionally recognized form, structure, or follows a set of rules, which seems to accord with Payne’s statement that formal PM methods are usually desired to improve cross-functional communication (Payne, 1993). Improvement of cross-functional communication seems required in view of the difficulties experienced by respondents in communicating in-formation between different departments. In the opinion of the respondents, communication between departments is often obstructed by a strong island mentality within departments and a highly valued culture of informal communication. Most respondents emphasize that project managers have actively monitor tasks to get the needed information from departments for project coordination. They suggest that implement-ing PM tools could reduce this effort to get the information and help coordination to become more responsive to the information communicated by the different departments to the project managers. This seems to suggest that a more responsive coordination is called for. This ac-

Highlight the need for work culture change

Highlight the important role of pro-ject manag-ers

Highlight the need for PM for respon-sive coordi-nation


50

cords with Meredith & Mantel stating that the organisational form and the project form should enable responsive coordination in order to focus responsibility and authority within the organization (Meredith & Mantel, 2010). To convince the organization of the need to change towards a PM work culture, the respond-ents singled out two factors, namely;

• The increased number of employees in the company has led to difficulties in the in-formation exchange between departments

• The increased repetition in produced products, caused by using more components of previously produced products. For example repeating components of a previously produced crane for a new type of crane. Repetition is believed to create opportunities for more efficient production- and management processes, reducing cost, improving quality, time and client satisfaction with more standardization of production- and PM processes.

These two factors should be highlighted to convince the organization to move towards a PM culture. Although these factors offer good reasons to move towards a PM work culture, the current work culture also has strengths that need to be preserved to safeguard the entrepre-neurial character of the company that is embedded in the current highly valued work culture. Therefore, PM implementation should be aimed at simple steps requiring little efforts as pos-sible with a good change management as described in 5.4.2. In this way people can focus their time and activities on their own work as much as possible, while documenting enough infor-mation for people who are dependent on this information in other departments. Convincing people of PM efforts should be supported by setting goals for PM tools. Formulating these goals and discussing these goals is part of the needed change management, described in the paragraph below. Change management requires effort and commitment within the organiza-tion, while organizations often find it far easier to focus on ‘doing’ things, especially because it appears to be more effective to ‘stop all the talk’ and ‘get on with the work’ (Meredith & Mantel, 2010). The most needed change management aspects are described in the sub-paragraph 5.4.2 below.

5.4.2 PM"change"management"

Respondents say that both the implementation of PM tools and the use of other uniform doc-uments like templates, excel sheets or work method, need a change management that consists of the aspects summed in Figure 13. This depicts the continuous cycle of improvements that are thought to be needed to support the implementation of a PM tool.

Two factors that call for PM

Efforts for PM tools should be supported by goals


51

Figure 13: Cycle of needed aspects to support the implementation of a PM tool

First, the decision has to be made to improve a certain PM process or tool. For example it could be decided to improve some of the current planning processes in the existing CP sys-tem. Or, it could be decided to improve the current risk management for example with a RL. Presently risks are considered individually and often they are not documented and infor-mation is not shared by the departments. Respondents state that the main reason why PM tools are not implemented is because they were not initiated properly. For PM tools to be initiated properly someone needs to be made responsible. This responsible person should be assigned enough time to monitor and coordi-nate the changes in the company and ensure the continuous improvement of PM tools. On the one hand, it seems logical to appoint persons from outside the company, who are skilled in change management, to coordinate PM implementation. On the other hand, some respondents believe this should be supervised by people from within the company because of their experience in the company. But all agree that people within the organization lack the time to do this. Appointing new people who operate with feedback from experienced employ-ees therefore seems to offer the best chance for successful PM implementation. Implementation can only be successful if proper goals are set for the PM tools to be imple-mented. The difficulty of formulating goals correctly and to get them accepted and under-stood by employees is often underestimated. This difficulty is reflected in the different goals that different respondents perceived to be important for CP. Organizing workshops, facilitated by people experienced in formulating goals and targets, could help in discussing and formu-lating these goals. Goal instrument charts, together with other problem structuring techniques,

Setting goals

Responsible person for PM initiative


52

such as those discussed by de Haan & Heer3, could facilitate understanding and acceptance of the goals and instruments (de Haan & de Heer, 2012). All to create consensus on what needs to be taken into account for the implementation of a PM tool. For example, the importance of the following goals, as mentioned by respondents for CP, could be discussed, as well as how the current CP design contributes to these goals:

• More comparable project information • More insight into task responsibilities and authorities • More insight into task progress • More insight into risks on tasks

A RL is as yet not used in the company. Most respondents are in favor of implementing a RL especially for the more innovative projects. Nevertheless these respondents admit that other employees will be less enthusiastic about a RL or any PM tools since they are believed to have more confidence in informal communication. The most important goal expressed for RL is increased insight into risks of tasks. Most benefits of a RL are expected from an improved communication between departments on risks of project tasks, by documenting risks in a RL, since risks considerations are as yet not documented and shared between departments. Similar goal setting and continuous improvement cycles should take place for all PM imple-mentations, like for uniform documents, templates, excel sheets and work methods. Most re-spondents express a general need for such uniform PM procedures and similar change man-agement. When goals are set, a PM tool has to be chosen and implemented that will contribute to achieving these goals. PM implementation needs active coordination to convince and check people on needed changes in behavior. For CP this could be an improved planning tool that contributes to the achievement of the said goals. When choosing to focus on risk management tools like RL, most respondents stress the im-portance of keeping these tools simple, since advanced risk management systems would be too complex and will not be used anyway because they take too much time. Implementing a RL should therefore be easy presentable and require as little time from employees as possible. Therefore a RL seems to have best chance to succeed when somebody assigned from outside the company develops it and works closely together with the existing project team, validates the input in the RL with the help of experienced employees and improves it along the way with feedback from employees. An example of a simple risk communication between departments could be a Risk Register (see Figure 14) in combination with a Risk Assessment Matrix (RAM) (see Figure 15). This could improve alignment between employees in different departments on which risks are to be taken into account and how they could be dealt with on occurrence. The RAM provides a low effort overview of the probability and the impact of risk events; that is to say of risks that originate from the Risk Register. The Risk Register can include various risks like economic, technological, and organizational risks and should be motivated by the factors likelihood, im-pact, immediacy, consequences, treatment and monitor (Verbraeck, 2009a and 2009b To im-prove the risk alignment between departments it could even be considered to include the re-sponsible department in the risk matrix. 3 More information on problem structuring of Haan & Heer in Appendix I: Problem focus matrix analysis

Choosing & implement-ing PM tool


53

Figure 14: Risk Register from the lecture SPM800 on risk management, faculty TPM, TU Delft (Verbraeck, 2009a)

Figure 15: Risk Assessment Matrix (RAM) from the lecture SPM800 on risk management, faculty TPM, TU Delft (Verbraeck, 2009a)

Active coordination is needed to evaluate the PM tool in achieving the set goals and to deter-mine possible improvements. Feedback from important employees that use the tools should be used to further improve the PM tools. Respondents also stress the importance of feedback given by the employees to be taken seriously, in order to get their commitment to the use of the tools. After evaluating and identifying possible improvements, the cycle in Figure 13 is likely to be repeated a few times.

5.5 Validity##

The validity of a research is the extent to which an observation or measurement is well-founded and corresponds accurately to the real world. The validity of a survey tool is consid-ered to be the degree to which the tool measures what it claims to measure. The reliability of a research is about the quality of the data collected, which should as far as possible not be in-fluenced or biased by the personality and subjective beliefs and convictions of the researcher and the way he conducted the interviews. This implies that replication of the research by an-other researcher and/or interviewer should in principle yield the same results. This paragraph will explain the efforts that have been made in this study to ensure validity and reliability of the research.

Evaluating PM tool and needed im-provements


54

5.5.1 Validity"of"the"research"and"the"interviews"

Because this explorative case study was set-up to search for as yet unknown explanations without specific hypotheses that should be tested it was very important to ensure validity and also to show what was done to reduce ‘subjective judgement’. The objective of this study was to improve the existing knowledge on problems in implement-ing PM methods. The research chose to focus on CP and RL to present more tangible subjects for respondents in the interviews and to be able to compare the more focused evidence from the interviews by means of cross-case analysis. The evidence from the case studies on CP and RL is related back to general PM conclusions. This procedure is valid since both CP and RL represent good examples of PM tools and because the respondents think that much of the evi-dence relates to PM tools. In order to explore the most important topics in the interviews several research propositions were formulated. These are based on the questions derived from a pilot study on the problems encountered by the project execution group in the ongoing improvement program (Huisman, 2012). This point has been discussed in Appendix I: Problem focus matrix analysis. The pro-ject execution group comprised four different groups, each covering a different improvement area, which fortunately reported on the perceived problems at the start of this case study (Jan-uary 2013).

1. Cost control (Huisman, 2013a) 2. Risk management process (Huisman, 2013b) 3. Project management process (Huisman, 2013c) 4. PE Planning (Huisman, 2013d)

These reports, in conjunction with interviews of the four group managers responsible, provid-ed the point of departure to formulate the propositions and research questions for the in-depth case studies and the selection of the most noteworthy respondents for this research. Because the research questions form the basis of this empirical case study much time and ef-fort has been put into formulating the best topics to explore in this case study and discussing them with the members of my graduation committee serving as expert panel in academic PM research and practical experience in Huisman Equipment.

5.5.2 Validity"of"the"research"outcomes"

The 10 respondents provide enough sources of evidence to represent valid outcomes for this case study. The 10 respondents were selected on the basis of the criteria presented in 3.6. Since the pilot study concluded that the implementation of PM tools are dependent on several departments the choice was made to select department heads from 6 departments, 3 project managers and the COO to represents a good mixture of the departments that are regarded as most influential in the matter of the implementation of PM tools. Hypotheses derived from this case study could be used to see if the outcomes of this case study are useful for other case studies, and if the hypotheses are also true for similar entrepre-neurial characterized companies. Hypotheses that seem most interesting to validate for other case studies are:

• Successful PM implementations is dependent on the collaborative effort of employees • Successful PM implementations is dependent on the collaborative agreement on goals

and arguments for PM tools among employees


55

• Success of PM implementation is dependent on the gap between current work culture and a PM work culture perceived needed

5.5.3 Reliability"of"the"results"

The research methodology, presented in chapter 4, should provide all the information needed for the replication of the research steps which follow the case study methods of Yin (Yin, 2003). Where possible coding has been used to retrace the origin of used statements. Assessment of the findings of this case study also depends on the quality of the interviews. In order to get the correct information, the respondents were assured of anonymity and the inter-views were taken with as much openness as possible in this way trying to prevent people from saying things in favor of a particular theoretical paradigm to please the interviewer or their superiors, and to leave room for alternative explanations. All interviews were held in Dutch, audio recorded, and stored for retrieval and possible veri-fication. Subsequently the interviews have been transcribed and the written text was sent to the respondents to allow for corrections and additions. Huisman Equipement offered the opportunity to conduct interviews freely among its person-nel without any restrictions; the most experienced department heads could be interviewed as well. All ten respondents were enthusiastic, open hearted and outspoken during their interviews, even about sensitive topics. All information that is perceived as important has been used but some statements on sensitive issues were slightly tempered to protect the iden-tity and integrity of the respondents.

"

"


56

6 !Conclusions)&)recommendations"With the findings from the cross-case analysis, it is now possible to draw some conclusions on PM implementation from this empirical study. Each of the first three paragraphs will offer a conclusion pertaining to a separate sub-question. The first paragraph concerns the potential benefits of PM and the PM culture that is thought to be needed for success. The second paragraph shall describe the current company’s work culture compared to an ideal PM work culture. The third paragraph shall discuss the main ob-stacles for PM implementation and an optimal PM culture. Paragraph Error! Reference source not found. will present a short conclusion pertaining to the main question based on the previ-ous paragraphs. Subsequently, paragraph 6.5 will discuss the potential for future research, whereas paragraph 6.6 will summon the managerial recommendations for Huisman Equip-ment.

6.1 Which#benefits#does#PM#potentially#offer#and#what#defines#a#PM#work#culture?#

PM literature state that PM and project managers are needed to improve responsive coordina-tion of tasks by focusing on responsibility and authority to meet the project requirements (Meredith & Mantel, 2010). The empirical study found similar coordination needs, such as more insight in task responsibilities, authority and progress, for coordination between the functional departments and the project managers, where PM practices, particularity CP, are seen as beneficial in achieving this. The responsive character of the coordination of tasks that Meredith & Mantel require seems to be reflected in the benefits respondents see for coordination with more PM. Presently co-ordination requires active monitoring of tasks and respondents express the opinion that PM could lessen the need for active monitoring of tasks and bring about a more responsive coor-dination of tasks. PM, particularity CP and RL, is taught to help responsive coordination by project managers. More information input on tasks from the functional department serves the following goals:

• More comparable project information • More insight in task responsibilities and authorities • More insight into task progress • More insight in risks on tasks

These goals relate to information that needs to be transferred from functional departments to project managers. To be able to reach these goals appropriate and well-designed information systems are needed. However, as the functioning of these systems will always be dependent on the way they are used by staff and personnel, a right PM work culture is essential. For both the information system and the PM work culture a more formal organization is de-sired, wherein formal is defined as exhibiting a transparent form, structure or set of rules. PM practices such as CP and RL are assumed to meet these formal requirements. The required PM work culture needs familiarity with improved information exchange be-tween departments. Within a PM work culture, the project manager is accorded an important

Need for PM & project manag-ers to improve coordination between de-partments

Needed respon-sive coordinat-ing tasks in-stead of active monitoring tasks

Benefits seen for PM

Benefits of PM need cross -departmental information systems and a PM work cul-ture

Goals for a PM work culture


57

role in improving the alignments between functional departments. For the project manager to be able to fulfill this role his function needs to be accepted in the company culture. Success is also dependent on individual qualities of project managers. The acceptance of project man-agers is facilitated with more uniform project procedures, PM methods and RL and CP.

6.2 What#defines#the#company#culture#and#how#does#this#relate#to#a#PM#culture?##

PM needs to be supported with a PM work culture that is perceived as different from the work culture now prevailing. Changes of the present company work culture towards a PM work culture are perceived needed because of two main reasons:

1. Grown company size The growth of the company has led to difficulties in the information exchange between de-partments. A PM work culture with adequate information exchange is seen as a potential solu-tion for this.

2. Increased repetition in products The increased repetition in produced products, caused by using more components of previous-ly produced products. For example repeating components of a previously produced crane for a new type of crane. Repetition is believed to create opportunities for more efficient produc-tion- and management processes, reducing cost, improving quality, time and client satisfac-tion with more standardization of production- and PM processes. The following list provides an overview of the characteristics of the present work culture that are thought to be in contradiction with a PM work culture:

• Presently there seems to be much work freedom, which is in contradiction with the need for less work freedom and more insight in task responsibility and task authority.

• Presently there seems to be a culture of ad hoc decision-making that is in contradic-tion with the need for making decisions based on a clear insight in task progress.

• The present culture is characterized by a strong island mentality within departments and informal communication between departments. However, in projects that are de-pendent on multiple departments there is a need for more information input from dif-ferent departments on progress, more cross-departmental processes and improved in-formation exchange between departments.

• The company is familiar with flexible, fast and impactful decisions that are made throughout the company. This seems incompatible with the needed work culture'that demands more control in structured decision-making.

• The present company is characterized as a mono-disciplinary (mainly engineering driven) organization, while other expertise and acceptance of other types of profes-sionals is wanted. The acceptance of project managers and planners in the organiza-tion is aimed at the improvement of the coordination of PM change initiatives.

• The present company culture seems to lack initiatives for PM changes. This should be changed in a culture that is open for the introduction of new ideas and practices. Somebody should be assigned the responsibility and time for taking change initia-tives, coordinating the change and continuously improving the PM.


58

6.3 What#are#the#possible#obstacles#for#the#implementation#of#PM?#

The obstacles that seem to prevent PM implementation and from realizing its benefits can be divided into strategic and operational obstacles. Strategic obstacles relate to managerial op-tions that prevent PM from reaching its objectives/goals. The operational obstacles are the obstacles that prevent PM from succeeding in its operational functioning.

6.3.1 Strategic"obstacles"""

The literature offers a description of various management characteristics, some of which are difficult to combine or seen as incompatible and conflicting. Some of the latter characteristics seem to be present in the prevailing work culture and in the PM work culture needed.

• Explorative product characteristics might require contradicting management styles unlike exploitative product characteristics (Martini, 2013b).

One of the reasons why respondents in the case study feel the need for PM is because the products have obtained more repetition characteristics. The literature and this case study show that different products might require different management styles. The current company cul-ture seems to accord better with the characteristics that Martini describes for explorative products, which involve search, variation, risk-taking, experimentation, play, flexibility, dis-covery and innovation (ibid.). However, the PM work culture that is needed for PM seems to accord better with the management style that Martini describes as needed for exploitative products, which involves refinement, choice, production, efficiency, selection, implementa-tion and execution (ibid.).

• Flexibility and control require different management styles (Koppenjan et al. 2011) Contradicting management needs, as the literature and the case study seem to confirm, are flexibility and control. On the one hand the current company work culture and one of its per-ceived strengths is flexibility. This flexibility is expressed in the case study with impactful decisions being made fast and ad hoc, communication is informal & people having much work freedom. On the other hand the organizations point to the need for more control on em-ployees behavior in a PM work culture, with more insight in task responsibility, task authority and progress and the need for alignment between departments by using PM methods and pro-ject managers. The organization is aware that PM methods need better presentation of goals and the full management support. The contradicting management styles (as explained previously) might be one of the reasons why this is lacking, since PM goals might be in conflict with other goals and management desires might therefore be conflicting too. Nevertheless consensus and commitment of the full management on the goals for PM has been expressed to be important but lacking, and is obstructing acceptance of PM in the company. One of the things that causes most disagreement between the majority of the respondents and the COO is the lack of insight in task progress with CP. Whereas the COO believes that the present CP gives enough insight in task progress, most of the respondents say that the present CP design is insufficient for this. The case study shows that PM implementation is hampered by the fact that the present culture is not enough change-oriented. Most of the respondents are in favor of PM and other uniform

Conflicting management needs

Lack of insight in task progress and authority in PM

Need for better presentation of and full man-agement sup-port PM goals

Lack of PM initiatives and coordination


59

work processes, but feel they are granted insufficient time to initiate PM proposals them-selves. Respondents stress the need to make somebody responsible for PM changes and to call upon other experts for PM change coordination and for continuous improvement cycles. As the definition of PM makes clear, PM is dependent on the application of knowledge, skills, tools and techniques in project activities to meet the project requirements. The effectiveness of PM is dependent on various PM practices. The present case study shows that respondent believe another CP design in conjunction with other PM systems, like WBS or ERP, are needed. It is unclear to them if and when these systems will be introduced.

6.3.2 Operational"obstacles""

Most of the respondents state that PM acceptance among employees is difficult. Some of the reasons relate to disagreements with functional goals in the design of PM systems, but re-spondents stress that a PM work culture is just or even more important for successful PM im-plementation. Obstructions for a PM culture seem to accord with Payne’s statement that re-sistance to change is often more people related than related to problems with the system itself (Payne, 1993). The most frequently mentioned operational obstructions within the current work culture are presented below. The respondents state that the current work culture offers a lot of work freedom that is highly valued but at the same time might hamper PM implementation. This work freedom appears to be incompatible with the description of the PM work culture needed. The needed PM work culture requires less work freedom and specifies ‘formal’ characteristics that seem incompat-ible with work freedom, such as a conventionally recognized form, structure and rules. Polesie confirms that losing sense of work freedom possibly represents an important obstruc-tion to change because it could lower work motivation (Polesie, 2013) Respondents state that the current implementation of PM practices is hampered by felt bu-reaucratization among the company’s employees. In the current work culture informal com-munication is highly valued and taken for granted. Respondents indicate that the employees fear the reporting requirements of PM. Many employees prefer informal communication over documented information and they feel that bureaucratization has gone too far already. The respondents think that project coordination might improve in case PM is providing need-ed information from employees within departments to the project managers. At the same time the respondents experience resistance from employees within departments because the em-ployees believe that the documented information needed for PM could contain imperfect in-formation and therefore prefer informal communication. Even if exchanging information with PM methods is desired it is seems good also to be aware of imperfections. Matta & Ashkenas mention planning methods have advatages to reduce the execution risk of planned activities not being carried out properly, however will never be perfect. There will always remain two risks, 1) the white space risk of some activities not being identified in advance by planning, leaving gaps in the project plan and 2) the integration risk when al planned activities are fin-ished but the result is not delivering the intended result (Matta & Ashkenas, 2003).

Lack of PM supporting systems

PM is ham-pered by feel-ings of bureau-cratization

Losing work freedom ham-pers PM

PM infor-mation needs are hindered by fears for imper-fect infor-mation


60

6.4 A#brief#conclusion#on#fitLforLpurpose#project#management#

On the basis of this case study, it is suggested that a fit-for-purpose approach is needed for PM implementation. The case study offers good reasons to adapt the organization to more PM but at the same time reveals clear obstacles for its implementation. Hopefully, this report will generate interest for a fit-for-purpose approach for PM implementation. The following con-clusions might be useful for overcoming some of the obstacles in PM implementation. The previous paragraphs answered the sub-questions that lead to answering the main research question which reads: What is a fit-for-purpose approach for implementing central planning and risk log PM practices, without losing entrepreneurial strengths within the company? The answer to this question is two-fold: awareness of why fit-for-purpose PM implementation is needed, and recommendations how fit-for-purpose PM implementations should deal with this awareness. This conclusion will focus on the first step for fit-for-purpose PM implementation by prepar-ing the organization for PM changes and narrowing the gap between the prevailing work cul-ture and the PM work culture that is needed. Finding PM tools that are fit-for-purpose to dif-ferent types of projects in the company is the next step to be taken after the organization has been prepared for fit-for-purpose PM implementation. The functioning of PM tools is dependent on the collaborative effort of numerous employees across departments who are expected to supply information for these PM tools. Improved co-ordination by project managers is seen as main objective for implementing PM tools. The quality of the information provided by employees determines how useful the tools are for the coordination of projects. Acceptance and effort spend on PM tools is hampered when people are not convinced about the chosen PM tool or when the ultimate goals remain unclear. Fur-thermore employees state that PM tools work less effective if they are only used for updating the manager who introduced the tool in line with his personal views about what is best. Man-agers who introduce PM tools are as temporary as their particular ideas on the best PM tool. The most important obstructions in implementing PM tools detected by this case study con-cerns the gap between the work culture that is needed for PM and the prevailing work culture that is highly valued among employees. The dependence on the collaborative efforts of em-ployees highlights the weakness of this work culture gap for PM. Since the current work cul-ture is highly valued the employees have to be convinced of the need for PM and a PM work culture. The two most important reasons are:

3. Increasing company size The growth of the company has led to difficulties in the exchange of information between departments. A PM work culture with adequate information exchange offers a potential solu-tion for this.

4. Increased repetition in components of products The increased repetition in produced products, caused by using more components of previous-ly produced products. For example repeating components of a previously produced crane for a new type of crane. Repetition is believed to create opportunities for more efficient produc-tion- and management processes, reducing cost, improving quality, time and client satisfac-tion with more standardization of production- and PM processes.

Awareness: PM functioning dependent on collaborative effort and ac-ceptance of numerous em-ployees

Awareness: The need to narrow the gap between cur-rent work cul-ture and PM work culture


61

In order to narrow the work culture gap, a PM work culture with a management style is need-ed that contradicts with the current management style. The present work culture has led to successes, is highly valued and seems well-suited for entrepreneurial companies with work culture values like flexibility to adapt to unforeseen circumstances, work freedom and infor-mal communication. A PM work culture, on the other hand, requires values that go against the prevailing work culture as it demands more control, with insight in task responsibility and task authority and more formal communication with less work freedom. The desire for more formal communication is expressed with desires for conventionally recognized forms, struc-tures and rules. A fit-for-purpose PM implementation should recognize the contradicting management needs and requires a clear explanation of the need to find a new balance between current work culture strengths and needed PM work culture to convince employees of this. The following will give recommendations of how fit-for-purpose PM implementation could deal with this awareness. Fit-for-purpose PM implementation should convince employees that collaborative effort is needed for PM tools to be successful. To convince employees of this effort, the goals for PM and the arguments why selected PM tools contribute to these goals should be clarified in workshops. To convince employees to change the work culture towards characteristics of PM work cul-ture, the PM goals and arguments for selected PM tools need to be made understandable to them and should have full support of the entire management since an individual manager’s vision on PM could be seen as temporary by employees.

The PM goals should consist of a number of intermediate steps and related arguments of why these steps contribute to the PM goals. To get PM tools accepted, in a work culture that seems in contradiction with a required PM work culture, the steps taken need to be small. Organiza-tions should not get lost in expected benefits of advanced PM tools. These advanced PM tools could be seen as long-term options but small PM steps are an organisational challenge that is big enough. PM steps also need to stay small and simple because in a work culture that seems at distance from a PM work culture, needed documentation for more formalized communica-tion could be seen as unwanted bureaucratization and not in line with prevailing work motiva-tions. 'Even if people are enthusiastic about the benefits of PM, implementation could be hampered in case initiatives for PM changes are lacking within the organization. Fit-for-purpose PM implementation should create an active change culture to ensure proper coordination of PM implementation and to check the collaborative use of PM tools by employees. An active change culture should consists of the aspects summed in Figure 13. After the decision is made to improve a certain PM process or tool. For example it could be decided to improve planning processes like a CP system. Or, it could be decided to improve the current risk management for example with a RL. The active change in culture should consist of a continuous improve-ment cycle and somebody who is made responsible for this PM initiative, who sets and dis-cusses the goals, selects the PM steps that contribute to these goals and evaluates the PM tools and any needed improvements.

The goals for PM and argu-ments why selected PM tools contribute to these goals should be clari-fied.

Small PM steps

Awareness on: contradicting management styles needed for entrepre-neurial organi-zation and PM

Support on goals and ar-guments for PM tools from entire man-agement

Coordinated steps in active change culture


62

Figure 16: Cycle of needed aspects to support the implementation of a PM tool

When we summarize all this in one sentence, fit-for-for purpose PM implementation should consist of small coordinated PM steps leading towards collaborative goals, taking into account management characteristics that conflict with the present work culture. This is the recommended way to prepare the organization to implement fit-for-purpose PM. Depend-ing on the PM focus different projects will require different fit-for-purpose PM tools that can follow should be determined in the next step. For the focus on CP and RL this case study indicates a RL could be especially interesting for more innovative projects to have better risk communication between departments. For CP this case study shows projects with more repetition could benefit most by increasing efficiency on repeating project parts whereas innovative projects are harder to plan because of more uncer-tainties and risks. But there can be several other PM foci. For example in this case study it is suggested to make some PM tools more uniform, since people now use individual chosen PM formats, while within a PM work culture PM tools with conventionally recognized form, structure and rules are desired.

6.5 Suggestions#for#further#research##This case study meets a demand for empirical examples in project management. In journals there is a tendency to endorse underlying assumptions of previous research (Hällgren, 2012). This case study gives empirical insight into perceived benefits of PM, the obstructions for implementing PM and based on these obstructions give recommendations how to prepare this organization for PM implementation. These insights might give direction to future research on more fit-for-purpose approaches for PM implementation. The need for more fit-for-purpose


63

approaches is emphasized by the, in this case study presented, obstructions with PM imple-mentation. For further research the following suggestions are made:

• More often linking case study results to the existing literature.

• Paragraph 5.4 describes some hypotheses that could be validated by more case stud-ies examples.

• The effectiveness of the change management recommendations made in this study could be tested with a field experiment on implementing a PM tool.

• Based on the results of this case study, future research on fit-for-purpose PM ap-

proaches could address the questions of how to find the right balance between a PM work culture and the prevailing work culture and how to deal with possible conflict-ing managements needs that could obstruct PM implementation.

6.6 Managerial#recommendations##

First of all the management needs to decide whether they want more PM or not. The current company work culture displays characteristics that seem to be conflicting with a needed PM work culture. Yet the current work culture has led to a very successful company and therefore also has valuable characteristics that need to be preserved. The two most important reasons why more PM would be needed revealed by this case study are:

• The increased number of employees in the company has led to difficulties in the in-formation exchange between departments

• The second reason is related to increased repetition in produced products, caused by using more components of previously produced products. For example repeating components of a previously produced crane for a new type of crane. Repetition is be-lieved to create opportunities for more efficient production- and management pro-cesses, reducing cost, improving quality, time and client satisfaction with more stand-ardization of production- and PM processes.

Should the management decide that more PM is needed this report might help with the first step by preparing the organization for fit-for-purpose PM changes and narrowing the gap be-tween the prevailing work culture and the PM work culture that is needed. Finding PM tools that are fit-for-purpose to different types of projects in the company is the next step to be tak-en after the organization has been prepared for fit-for-purpose PM implementation. Although benefits for PM are widely acknowledged the case study shows numerous obstacles that prevent the implementation of PM tools. One of the most important obstacles is that the needed PM work culture does not accord with the work culture that presently exists and is highly valued in the company. A change of work culture towards a PM work culture required since successful PM implementation is not only dependent on choosing the best PM tool de-sign but also on collaborative efforts of employees giving meaningful input to these PM tools. To convince employees of these efforts, the goals for PM and how the selected PM tools con-tribute to these goals should be clarified. Although the current CP seems to offer a promising start for more PM, it also uncovered clear differences among employees and the COO with respect to how the current CP design contributes to the PM goals. This case study predicts that acceptance of PM tools and the related PM work culture will not be easy. As discussed further in 5.4.1, to successfully implement PM the organization needs to be made aware of


64

why PM is needed and why the introduction is difficult in the organization. Change manage-ment is needed to guide the introduction of PM and overcome the obstacles in the implemen-tation


65

7 Reflection"

7.1 On#the#academic#side#- Explorative interviews research as yet unknown propositions; researching such prop-

ositions requires assumptions and the bundling of large amounts of statements that are considered important. The reliability of these assumptions and bundling of state-ments depends on the truthfulness of the respondents and the qualities of the re-searcher. I personally believe the output from respondents can be qualified as very trustful. I also believe that the researcher treated this output with much integrity but this remains a subjective interpretation. Both the trustfulness of the respondents and of the researcher remains hard to verify.

- I found looking for appropriate literature to structure explorative research rather diffi-cult. The book of Yin on case study research (Yin, 2003) offered some help to struc-ture the research, but examples on how to arrive at the best research questions I per-sonally found to be limited and disappointing. Fortunately my graduation committee offered assistance and the feedback needed for the reflection on my ideas.

- One of the challenges in this research was how to best represent statements on per-ceived problems and how to best interpret the statements of the respondents. This is especially difficult because respondents often use different definitions and have dif-ferent views on possible solutions. Interpretation and the bundling of statements were needed to create overview. The book on problem structuring of complex problems from Haan & Heer offered a lot of help in obtaining a comprehensive overview of the problems based on the statements from the respondents (de Haan & de Heer, 2012)

7.2 On#the#practical#side##- I believe my internship at Huisman Equipment offered me much added value to the

research. This is because, o of characteristics of Huisman Equipment, o of the support of my 1st and 2th committee members within the company o and because of up-to-date information within the improvements program

- The characteristics of Huisman Equipment offered a favorable research environment with little formal hierarchy where I was able to talk to anybody if needed.

- Two members of my research and thesis committee, who are employees of Huisman Equipment, offered support in finding the right people for my research. It was easy to get in contact with the best people for this research. Furthermore they offered me all freedom to conduct research within Huisman Equipment.

- The availability of up-to-date information from the improvements program created a good condition to do a pilot study on perceived problems in project execution to fo-cus my research.

7.3 On#the#results##- I believe that my full-time presence in Huisman Equipment during my internship was

beneficial for the quality of the findings laid down in this report. - My presence at Huisman Equipment offered the opportunity to get to know most of

the respondents better personally before I interviewed them, which I believe, resulted in more open and reliable interviews.


66

- Furthermore my full-time presence in in Huisman Equipment allowed me to intro-duce nuances in the research design because of the exposure to the daily working conditions and the professional activities of employees at Huisman Equipment.

- I believe the results of this study offer an empirical contribution to the existing body of PM literature in which is found a large amount of repetition of its own theoretical assumptions.

- This empirical study offers a case example that highlights the problems in implement-ing PM and might offer useful starting points for the on-going development of better approaches for PM implementation.

7.4 #Personal#challenges#- At the beginning of this research I did not expect the research would become this so-

cially sociologically oriented. This was very challenging because I do not believe this kind of research suits my personal core competence nor do I believe this was the orig-inal intention of my study at the Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management and my Master in Construction Management and Engineering.

- Finding the right research approach was difficult but with the help of/and reflection with my graduation committee I believe that in the end this problem was satisfactorily solved.

- By far the biggest challenge is my dyslexia. From the start of the research I became aware of the importance of proper formulation in written language. Without my dys-lexia I believe it would have been much easier to present and discuss my findings with my graduation committee. Fortunately I found a good friend of my family, a senior anthropologist with experience in social research, willing to carefully look into my thesis and assist me in expressing my views in this unfamiliar field of study more clearly and accurately.

- The open and honest interviews at Huisman Equipment were a great personal experi-ence in learning more about widely different perspectives on changes in organisa-tions. Furthermore, the interviews made me aware of a few controversial and sensi-tive issues in the company, which I had to learn dealing with accordingly in order to maintain the delicate balance between interesting results and respect for confidentiali-ty.


67

8 Bibliography,"

Ahlemann, F., El Arbi, F., Kaiser, M. G., & Heck, A. (2013). A process framework for theoretically grounded prescriptive research in the project management field. International Journal of Project Management, 31(1), 43–56. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.03.008

De Haan, A., & de Heer, P. (2012). Solving Complex Problems. 2012). Solving Complex Problems. The Hague: Eleven International Publishing. The Hague: Eleven International Publishing.

Globerson, S. (1994). Impact of various work-breakdown structures on project conceptualization, 12(3), 165–171.

Hällgren, M. (2012). The construction of research questions in project management. International Journal of Project Management, 30(7), 804–816. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.01.005

Huisman. (2012). Improvement Program, (October).

Huisman. (2013a). Project execution- Cost control project number 2.0.2. Schiedam: Theme Cost Control, part of Project Execution in the Improvement Program of Huisman.

Huisman. (2013b). Risk Management Process - Project plan rev. D. Schiedam: Theme Risk Management Process, part of Project Execution in the Improvement Program of Huisman.

Huisman. (2013c). Project Management Process - Project plan revA - project number A12-20751. Schiedam: Theme Management Process, part of Project Execution in the Improvement Program of Huisman.

Huisman. (2013d). PE Planning - Project plam Revision A. Schiedam: Theme PE Planning, part of Project Execution in the Improvement Program of Huisman.

Koppenjan, J., Veeneman, W., van der Voort, H., ten Heuvelhof, E., & Leijten, M. (2011). Competing management approaches in large engineering projects: The Dutch RandstadRail project. International Journal of Project Management, 29(6), 740–750. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.07.003

Martini, A. (2013a). Continuous innovation!: towards a paradoxical , ambidextrous combination of exploration and exploitation Bjørge Timenes Laugen Luca Gastaldi and Mariano Corso, 61(1), 1–22.

Martini, A. (2013b). Continuous innovation!: towards a paradoxical , ambidextrous combination of exploration and exploitation Bjørge Timenes Laugen Luca Gastaldi and Mariano Corso, 61(1), 1–22.


68

Matta, N. F., & Ashkenas, R. N. (2003). Why good projects fail anyway. Harvard business review, 81(9), 109–14, 134. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12964398

Meredith, J. R., & Mantel, S. J. (2010). Project management: a managerial approach. Wiley.

Payne, J. H. (1993). Introducing formal project management into a traditional , functionally structured organization. International Journal of Project Management, 11(4), 1.

PMBOK-guide. (2000). A Guide to Project Body of Knowledge Project Management (PMBOK Guide). Pennsylvania: Project Management Institute.

Polesie, P. (2013). The view of freedom and standardisation among managers in Swedish construction contractor projects, 31, 299–306.

Shenhar, A. J. (2007). Reinventing Project Management: The Diamond Approach to Successful Growth and Innovation. Harvard Business Press.

The Economist Intelligence Unit. (2009). Closing the gap, The link between project management excellence and long-term success. The Economist.

Verschuren, P., & Doorewaard, H. (2010). Designing a Research Project (Second.). The Hague: Eleven International Publishing.

Waterman, R. H., Peters, J. T. J., & Phillips, J. R. (1980). Stucture is not organization. Business Horizon.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research - Design and Methods (Third Edit.). SAGE Publications.


1

Appendix(I:"Problem'focus'matrix'analysis"

Table"of"Contents"

"

“If I had an hour to save the world

I would spend 59 minutes defining the problem

and one minute finding solutions”, Einstein

1 Creating)focus)"Solving organizational problems means not merely looking at structural reorganization but involves several other related factors (Waterman, Peters, & Phillips, 1980) The lack of empir-ical and theoretical foundations is seen as one of the reasons for problems in the implementa-tion of PM methods, like lack of support in practice, limited effectiveness and unclear appli-cation scenarios (Ahlemann, El Arbi, Kaiser, & Heck, 2013). To study these problems the problem focus matrix aims at finding the main perceived problems to focus he research on. This will help in defining the research questions constituting the main research question. In search for the perceived main problems the four groups in Figure 16 (IP PE groups) of the project execution theme in the improvement program have been researched. These groups have each submitted a project plan to the Improvement Program in January 2013 detailing their last views on needed improvements. These four project plans have been the main sources for the problem focus matrix in 1.2.3. In addition to the project plans some topics de-rived from interviews and observations were included in the matrix.

Improvement"Program"Project"Execution"groups"(IP"PE"groups)!1. Cost control 2. Risk management process 3. Project management process 4. PE Planning

Figure 17: IP PE groups used for problem-focus-matrix


2

1.1 Making#problems#explicit#Making problems explicit will help to communicate with those confronted with the problems in order to find better fit-for-purpose solutions (de Haan & de Heer, 2012). For initiating a fit-for-purpose approach to formal project management methods within the organization we have to get a better understanding of the perceived problems in the organization. Defining problems is often one of the hardest aspects of problem solving (ibid.). Formulating problems is not like mathematics as there is not one single right answer and more often than not differ-ent people perceive problems differently (ibid.). Different interests and different experiences also often bias problem awareness. Making problems explicit forces the people involved to arrive at a consensus on what needs to be changed and what solutions might help achieving this. This is especially important since people might have different or even conflicting interests. This counteracts built-in solution-thinking when people are defending the instrument which they perceive as offering the solution (ibid.). This one instrument might only be one of the possible solutions, and they could be overlooking better solutions for the problems at hand. . Furthermore not focusing on solutions helps to prevent overlooking dilemmas, which actually every problem statement should have, since without dilemmas there is no problem (ibid.).

1.2 #Constructing#the#problem#focus#matrix#The problem focus matrix in chapter 1.2.3 is used to structure the perceived problems. The four project proposals on the project execution theme and some additional research topics constitute the 5 rows in the matrix, called the IP PE groups. The columns represent the 5 fo-cus subjects (described in chapter 1.2.1).

1.2.1 Focus"subjects"The following 5 focus subjects were chosen together with my graduation committee as the most relevant to categorize the perceived problems.

- Planning control - Cost control - Risk control - Governance - Culture

1.2.2 Goals,"instruments"and"criteria"in"the"problem"focus"matrix"In order to make the perceived problems more explicit they have been divided in goals, in-struments and criteria. Facing a problem people often mix up these aspects. First the problem descriptions of the four project plans from the IP PE groups are translated into goals (blue), instruments (yellow) and criteria (green). This translation is based on one of the problem analyzing techniques, taught at the faculty of TPM TU Delft, and described in the book Solving Complex Problems (de Haan & de Heer, 2012). This step should structure the perceived problems in alternatives (instruments) leading to wanted goals, which should yield measurable problem objectives (criteria). The book uses this technique and others in order to get a clear perspective on different alternatives and their effects, without focusing on a supposedly optimal one from the start (ibid.). There are several rules for formulating goals, instruments and criteria all aimed at structuring the problems. Like goals should indicate di-rections (higher, lower, cheaper etc.), instruments to be directly controllable by the problem solver and criteria to be measurable representations of objectives related to the problem. Subsequently for each IP PE group the goals, instruments and criteria have been projected in the most appropriate focus areas of the matrix in 1.2.3.


3

1.2.3 Problem"focus"matrix"" The Matrix below presents the problem focus matrix. In this matrix goals and instruments have been grouped together from Appendix: Problem Focus Matrix (long list). The numbers in the subscripts refer to the subjects numbers presented in the Appendix: Problem Focus Ma-trix (long list). If reading Appendix Problem Focus Matrix (long list) single normal number subscript refers to the subject number in the same column as in the Problem Focus Matrix (long list), whereas a number with a fraction like 4.5 refers to column 4 subject 5.


4

Focus&subjects&&IP&PE&groups&&&&

1.Planning&control& 2.Cost&control& 3.Risk&control& 4.Governance& 5.Culture&

1.#Cost#con*trol#(Huisman,#2013a)#

1. Uniform#break#down#struc*tures#1,2,4,5,7#

2. More#uniformity#6#3. Easier#to#link#data#7,9,10##4. More#ability#to#forecast#8#&&

1. Uniform#break#down#structures#1.3##2. Flow#chart1##3. Product#category#tree#2#4. Easier#to#link#data#1.9,1.10,4.7##5. Less#unnecessary#costs#5#6. More#uniform#cost#process#4,12#7. More#progress#reporting#5,1.8,10,13#8. More#ability#to#forecast#7,9,11,14,15#&9. More#benchmarking#possibilities#8##10. More#cost#evaluation#options#9,4.5#11. More#learning#4.5##

# 1. KPI’s#(success#factors)#1,6#2. Business#intelligence#tool#(BI)#2#3. Enterprise#resource#planning#

(ERP)#3#4. More#learning#4##5. More#uniformity#6#6. More#sharing#of#information#7,8##

1. More#cost#management#awareness#2.9,2,4.5##

2. More#ability#to#forecast3##3. Less#copying#of#old#mistakes#

in#budgets4#4. [Commitment#of#improve*

ment#stakeholders]#5#5. [Availability#of#improvement#

project#members]#6#

2.#Risk#man*age*ment#process#(Huisman,#2013b)&

1. Easier#to#link#data#1#2. Uniform#break#down#struc*

tures#2#&

##########

1. Easier#to#link#data#1.1#2. New#procedure#plan!#3. Describe#risk#assessment#tools#2#4. More#uniform#risk#process#3,12,13,#

17,18,21,22,24,26,4.4#5. Define#risk#management#defini*tion#4#

6. More#risk#management#aware*ness#4,5,9,15,19,25,3#

7. Risk#based#maintenance#plans6#8. FMEA#and#FMECA#analysis#7,25#9. Gap#between#“ist”#and#“soll’#risk#process#8##

10. More#risk#evaluation#10,11,12,14,18#

11. [less#mistakes#and#of#risk#events]#27,28,29,30,31,32]#

1. Separate#risk#department#1#2. Early#risk#assessment#should#

move#away#from#PM#2#3. More#learning#from#successes#

and#mistakes#3.22#4. More#efficiency#4#5. More#clarity#of#what#to#expect#

from#PM#department#5,6##6. More#alignment#of#risk#pro*

cesses#of#HE#and#HGS#7##

1. More#correct#decisions#1#2. More#clarity#on#potential#risks#

in#projects#2#3. More#risk#management#

awareness#3#4. More#attention#on#operation*

al/#functional#requirements#instead#of#technical#engineer*ing#solutions5#

5. [Commitment#of#improve*ment#stakeholders]#

6. [Availability#of#improvement#project#members]#

7. [number#of#satisfied#clients]4.5#

3.#Project#manage*ment#pro*cess#(Huisman,#2013c)&

1. Uniform#milestones#1#2. Description#and#checklists#of#

project#hold#points#and#deliv*erables#2#

3. Project#process#flow#chart/timeline##3#

4. Framework#to#file#and#man*age#PM#processes##4#

& # 1. Communication#plan#to#posi*tion#project#management#1#

2. Clear#description#of#individual#project#management#process#2#

3. Uniform#description#position#project#management#4,14##

4. ERP#interfaces#4#5. Existing#organizational#chart#

1. Increase#awareness#of#stake*holder##responsibilities#1,2,4.11#

2. More#PM#mandate#in#Huis*man#3,6#

3. Increase#awareness#of#PM#in#Huisman#4,5#

4. Improve#understanding#on#impact#of#events#on#project#


5 Focus&subjects&&IP&PE&groups&&&&


5. Uniform#definitions#and#de*scriptions#3#

6. More#uniform#planning#pro*cess#6,4,410,415,4.16#,417&

interface#5#6. Sales,#after#sales#and#service#

process#interface#6#7. Gap#“ist”#and#“soll’#project#

process#7#8. Determine#of#NEN*ISO#21500#is#

desired#18#9. Less#involvement#of#PM#in#

detailed#aspects#of#project#exe*cution#8#

10. More#overview#of#the#‘bigger’#picture#12#

11. More#learning#from#successes#and#mistakes#13#

12. [Uniform#project#management#processes]#19,20,21,22##

performances#7#5. [Company#wide#awareness#on#

PM#needs]#8,9#6. [less#“oh#shit”#(accidental#

events)#7. [making#less#similar#mistakes]#8. [Commitment#of#improve*

ment#stakeholders]#9. [Availability#of#improvement#

project#members#

4.#PE#Plan*ning#(Huisman,#2013d)&

1. Uniform#break#down#struc*tures#1,2#

2. Planning#application#3. Method#and#application#for#

progress#reporting#4. Output#reports#for#project#

control#5. Definition#of#planning#pro*

cesses#6. More#uniform#planning#pro*

cess#7,13#7. More#dependencies#in#sched*

ules#8,11,19#8. More#supply#chain#details#in#

schedules#9,13##9. Less#capacity#issues#10,17,18#10. Less#stock#11#11. More#linkage#between#pro*

ject#planning#and#department#schedules#15#

12. [uniform#and#used#planning#processes]#20,21,22#

& & 1. Report#on#ERP#compatibility#1#2. EMI#system#2#3. ERP#system#3##4. Define#authorities#in#planning#

process#4##5. Definition#of#work#orders#in#

Schiedam#5#6. Planning#responsibilities#inte*

grated#in#PM#process#6##

1. More#on*time#deliveries#1,2,3#2. Fewer#ad#hoc#decisions#4#3. More#Huisman*wide#com*

mitment#5#4. More#clarity#on#day*to#day#

activities#6,11,12#5. Consensus#on#authority#over#

planning#7##6. Consensus#on#the#flexibility#in#

project#schedules#8#7. More#insight#in#projects#im*

pact#on#company*wide#re*courses#9,13#

8. Less#projects#sales#without#enough#insight#in#available#capacity#10##

9. More#consistent#progress#reporting#14,15#

10. More#successful#project#planning#16#


6 Focus&subjects&&IP&PE&groups&&&&


5.#Attention#subjects#interviews#and#obser*vations#(Based#on#Appendix#Problem#Focus#Matrix#(long#list))#

# & & # 1. Increase#understanding#of#project#manager#role#

2. Increase#support#for#project#managers#

3. Innovative#strength#4. Increase#uniform#instead#of#

individual#work*flows#5. Increase#commitment#to#get#

to#uniform#work*flows##6. Increase#of#following#uniform#

procedures#7. Increase#knowledge#of#re*

sponsible#persons#in#planning#

2 Problem(analysis("

2.1 Problem+owner++Since problem perceptions depend on individual views and interests connected to a problem the problem perceptions differ between involved stakeholders. Since this research focuses PM improvements for the problem execution group within Huisman Equipment and the COO is held responsible for organizational changes in Huisman Equipment, the COO is perceived as primary problem owner. Nevertheless the organizational changes and their impact depend on stakeholders holding dif-ferent positions within the company of Huisman Equipment. It is therefore important to de-termine what are their views on the problems. Other important stakeholders within in this problem environment seem to be:

• CEO • CFO • Project managers • Project planners

o Cost o Risk o Time

Stakeholders have different interest company-wide. These different interests are likely to af-fect problem perceptions.

2.2 Main+goals+The main goal of formal project management could be seen as increased control following See the definitions below:

The need for formal project management and cross-functional coordination also seems to be indicated in the problems perceptions from the IP PE group. Also seen when we look at the word frequencies visualizations in chapter 2.3.1 and is highlighted by Payne with: The grown size of the company and lack of control over project execution creates the need for

cross-functional coordination. To be able to have cross-functional coordination there is a need for formal project management (Payne, 1993)

“Diagnosing and solving organizational problems means not merely looking to structural reorganizations for answers but to a framework that includes structure and several related

factors.” (Waterman, et al., 1980)

2.3 Results+from+problem+focus+matrix+Before we take a look at the problem focus matrix it is important to be aware of the follow-ing:

Formal: Having a conventionally recognized form, structure, or set of rules.

Quotation 4: Dictionary Apple Inc.

Control: The power to influence or direct people's behavior or the course of events.

Quotation 5: Dictionary Apple Inc.


8

• The perceived problems do not have to be the same as the real problems • The frequencies of perceived problems do not necessary indicate the nature or im-

portance of the problem.

2.3.1 Word"frequencies"The problem-focus-matrix in 1.2.3 is a compressed version from complete matrix in Appen-dix: Problem Focus Matrix (long list) Before it was compressed the word frequencies have been visualized. The word frequency visualization (Figure 18) shows the most used words such as process, project, risk, management, planning and cost. However these words are also the most ex-pected words and therefore do not give much added value, since cost control, risk manage-ment process, project management process and PE planning are the themes of the IP PE groups and these words are almost inevitable to be used. Therefore these words are excluded in the word frequency visualization of Figure 17.

Figure 17: Normalized word frequency visualization with Tagxedo.com (excluding the words: project, man-agement, process, risk, planning, Huisman, PM and improvement)


9

Figure 18: Normalized word frequency visualization with Tagxedo.com

Most frequent words form figure 2 Reporting, Time, description, ERP, WBS, Ability Uniform, progress, events, operational, awareness, clarity, department, clear, schedules, alignment, definition, execution, possibili-ties, detailed, budget, mandate, assessment, standard, structure, number, analysis, mistakes, dependencies, responsibility, availability. Apart from the excluded obvious words (process, project, risk, management, planning, cost) Looking at the word frequencies there appears to be a felt need for ‘formal’ structures be-cause of the alignment of Quotation 4 and the frequently used words: process, uniform, clear, clarity, definition, progress, description, structure, standard, schedules. The need for cross-functional coordination and control as defined in Quotation 5 seems to be closely associated with the frequently used words in the problem-focus-matrix, namely: re-porting, events, dependencies, mistakes, responsibility, availability, ability, possibilities, alignment, (between) departments, time, budget, execution, detailed, operational, assessment analysis. Just as the excluded obvious words (process, project, risk, management, planning, cost)

2.4 Criteria+For the implementation of fit-for-purpose formal project management there needs to be a bal-ance in the most important criteria that determine successful formal project management for the organization. Criteria represent the aspects of problems that the stakeholders find im-portant (de Haan & de Heer, 2012). It is very interesting to look at the factors that influence these criteria in order to find possible solutions. Criteria should be made measurable and quantifiable. The most important criteria derived from the problem-focus-matrix in chapter Error! Refer-ence source not found. are:

• Satisfied clients • Alignment of processes • Uniform processes


10

• Commitment for uniform processes • Awareness function project manager • Responsibility/accountability of tasks • Number of mistakes • Project performance • (Management) surprises • Innovative strength

2.5 +Instruments+perceived+to+influence+the+problem+Instruments are tools controlled by the problem owner and presumed to influence the prob-lem. The instruments that are frequently mentioned for control are:

• WBS • ERP

Various other instruments may accord with the ‘formal’ definition of having a conventionally recognized form, structure, or set of rules, and accord with the aim for more control. The instrument can be clustered into:

• Instruments perceived to be useful • Instruments perceived needed to evaluate the organisation • Instruments perceived to create awareness and mandate for project management

Instruments perceived to be useful

• Uniform break down structures (BDs) o Priority for uniform Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)

• Flow chart • Product category tree • KPI’s (success factors) • Business intelligence tool (BI) • Enterprise resource planning (ERP) • Manufacturing Execution Systems (MES) / Enterprise Manufacturing Intelligence (EMI) • Separate risk department • Planning application

Instruments perceived needed to evaluate the organization

• ERP interfaces • Existing organizational chart interface • Sales, after sales and service process interface • Determine of NEN-ISO 21500 is desired

• Method and application for progress reporting • Output reports for project control • New procedure plan • Risk based maintenance plans • FMEA and FMECA analysis • Uniform milestones • Report on ERP compatibility • Project process flow chart/timeline • Definition of work orders in Schiedam • Gap “ist” and “soll’ risk process • Gap “ist” and “soll’ project process • Describe risk assessment tools

Instruments perceived to create awareness and mandate for project management

• Define risk management definition


11

Research question a. What benefits does PM potentially offer and what defines a PM work culture?

• Clear description of individual project management process • Define authorities in planning process • Early risk assessment should move away from PM • Planning responsibilities integrated in PM process • Uniform definitions and descriptions • Uniform description position project management • Definition of planning processes • Description and checklists of project hold points and deliverables • Framework to file and manage PM processes • Communication plan to position project management

2.6 Potential+benefits+of+PM+The present size of the company and the lack of control over project execution create the need for cross-functional coordination. Payne claims that cross-functional coordination can be en-hanced by formal project management (Payne, 1993). The need for formal project management and control with cross-functional coordination is also reflected in the problem perceptions of the IP PE groups and in the word-frequencies-visualizations in chapter 2.3.1. This chapter will describe the most serious of the perceived problems for the research questions.

2.6.1 Criteria"A good starting point for the research, on a fit-for-purpose approach for implementing formal project management, form the perceived criteria seen as important by the stakeholders in the work environment. Criteria represent the elements that the stakeholders find important (de Haan & de Heer, 2012). Criteria should be made measurable and quantifiable. This pilot study showed the following criteria. A few criteria indicate the need for cross-functional coordination with formal project man-agement, like:

• Alignment of processes • Uniform processes • Responsibility/accountability

o Monitoring tasks o Deciding on tasks o Budgeting on tasks

Other seemingly important criteria are:

• Client satisfaction • Project performance • Management surprises • Mistakes

As de Haan and de Heer suggest these criteria represent the elements in the problem sur-roundings that the stakeholders find important (de Haan & de Heer, 2012). These criteria give focus to research aimed at determining if and how project management could contribute to these criteria. The first research question will explore this in more detail by answering:


12

Research question b. What defines the company culture and how does this relate to a PM culture?

Research question: What are the possible obstacles for the implementation of PM?

2.6.2 Dilemmas""Every problem statement includes dilemmas, since without dilemmas there is no problem (de Haan & de Heer, 2012). Implementing project management likely also has its dilemmas oth-erwise there would not be a problem. Looking at the problem perceptions form the IP PE groups the main perceived dilemmas con-nected with formal project management seem to be:

• Innovation strength • Commitment for uniform processes • Awareness function project manager

2.6.3 Innovation"Innovative strength is a criterion held to be important in the current and past culture of Huis-man Equipment and which might be in conflict with implementing formal project manage-ment. This possible conflict calls for further research on the effects of formal project man-agement on innovation strengths embedded in the company culture. Reflected in the second research question:

2.6.4 Obstacles"implementing"PM"Many attempts to solve organizational problems with formal project management fail in prac-tice (The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2009). Conflicts and obstacles surround the instru-ments that are perceived as needed for project management. Awareness of and commitment to project management is perceived as a important problem in the IP PE groups. This is said to be related to unfamiliarity with the role of a project manager and a company culture that has not enough trust in project management. Besides this it seems likely there must be more obstacles obstructing PM implementation that need more in-debt research, raising the following question

2.7 Concluding+the+main+research+question+The shortage of empirical research on the theoretical foundations for implementing PM meth-ods, and the limited successes of applying PM, are the reasons for taking undertaking this case study to research a more fit-for-purpose approach to implement project management. Therefore the previous research questions a,b and c are aimed to answer the main research question:


13

Appendix(II:"Long%list%interview%statements"

Table"of"Contents"

1 Intro&of&statements'categories" Cross case analysis A cross case analysis is performed on the interviewees output. To do this statements have been deduced from the interviews and put in this word table. The codes indicate the inter-viewee his origin. Subsequently a code behind a statement indicates the interview indicated the interviewee agrees with the statements. The sub-paragraphs have been categorized based on the research elements in the visual model of Figure 8. To help structuring and analysing the statements in the cross case analysis have been formulated in goals, criteria and instruments where fit. This technique is based on prob-lem techniques to structure problems, derived from the TPM TU Delft faculty and described in the book from (De Haan & De Heer, 2012). The cross case analysis will help to draw con-clusions how statements align over the different interviewed interviewees, their function as well ad their department.

1.1 Central+planning+(CP)+++Current CP status distract factors all projects are not completely finished

• [CP is used with project but needs to be better] (p1, p2,p3, Pr,P, Sc

• CP exist for 2 years (C • CP is now accepted (C

o Acceptance steadily grew • Acceptance of CP is growing (Sc • Reliability of CP is growing (Sc • [CP is only indirectly used] (S

o CP only used for current not for potential projects • [CP was not yet introduced at start of the project] (p1,p2,p3, • Now CP is used for every new project (E • [Took over project halfway] (p2, p3 • [Big supporter of CP] (p2 • [first project with fully embedded of CP just started a month ago] (P

o CP from start on this project and agreement from departments causes more accepted CP (P • [Own project planning made between level 2 & 3 detail] (p1, p2, p3 • [Own project planning made on level 3 detail (Pr • [Own planning made for testing & commissioning with good working bottom-up feed-back] (p3 • • [CP follow up is still often a problem] (p3


14

• [CP is not changed under any circumstance] (p1,p2,p3,Pr,P,T

• [Not adapting CP is to circumstances is hot topic] (p1,p2,p3,Pr,P, Sc

• CP is not changed to convince people to finish deadlines, and delays do not become normal. (P, E,T

o This culture change needs strict CP (P, E, • Accept and understands the current CP vision from management but personally believe it needs to give

more insight in up-to-date situation to be useful (T • Experience less resistance to CP because of strict CP policy (P • Because panning is not updated to up-to-date situation employees do not take the planning serious (p1

o People know they are waiting for a delayed task but can’t see when this task it really finishes (p1

o People are expected to deliver on time even though there time is lost because other do not fin-ish there task in time (p1

• This is not the first CP initiative (p1,E,T • Previous CP initiative with better interconnection between CP level 2 and lever 3 was abandoned

(E,T o there was a automatic link between planning and long lead items (T o encrypted version accessible for everybody on internet (T o introduction CP was more accepted by project managers than current CP (T

• Needed interconnection between CP level 2 and level 3 is getting better but is forced (E • Employees doubt on added value of grown administrative work load (S • There has never been a presentation about the reasons for made CP choses (S • Current CP is good control KPI tool (T • Current CP has low added value for organization to align tasks and decide on resource priorities (T • Understand CP design, work with it out of professionalism but do not think it is the best chose (T • Planning does not show up to date work progress (T,Sc

o Employees therefore have to do more effort to find up-to-date work progress somewhere else (p1,T, Sc

• Believe people have more critics on CP than they express freely (T • CP only fully implemented with recent started projects (Pr • CP could have been further if more effort was spend in getting acceptance from employees and less fast

implementation. (Pr o Some have accepted and some still believe in own ways (Pr

• Agreements and responsibilities to finish tasks needed for CP need to be actively monitored, but should ** (p3

• Current CP is not used a lot by department (T o Because it does not give insight in actuals (up-to-date) (T

Input

• Hour estimation is generally to much announced to Engineering in stead of asking (E • Hours are deliberately estimated tight because it is possible if everybody tries hard (S

o Hard to understand shy engineering hours seem to go up (S ! Bureaucratization or more work?

• Progress repots are used to project delays to planning. Not to project new delayed finish times (T • Hour estimation should be set dominantly otherwise everybody will want best deal on shared recourses

(Sc o But all department should also agree on final CP o Everybody

• Hours are need to be budgeted more accurate since now budgeted ours are and endanger schedule and budgeted hours are not taken seriously or are reported on (p3

o Requires cultural chance (p3 o Requires actively asking for acceptance and taking responsibility o Cultural change can be speed up by confronting people with positive and negative feedback on

consequences of doing and not doing things (p3 • Departments do not easily give input to planning department instead planning needs to get needed input

themselves (P

Output • CP planning are not used to determine recourse availability (S

o COO or CEO verbally gives recourse availability interpretation (S o Would be better do be documented and available to department (S o CP should reflect truth


15

o Current CP is not yet in such a format the CEO & COO agree on being the truth (S • CP does not give enough insight into real current work progress (p1, T, • CP dates are not met (T • Parallel planning might occur because CP does not pressed up-to-date project changes (p3 • Because CP dates are not met by company much work pressure moves to the back of the project (T • CP finish dates of tasks should be updated to reality (T • Not adapting CP to planning changes increase the risks of creation of shadow planning (p3

Current CP progress • [CP is slowly getting a more prominent place] (p2

o Caused by recent COO & his commitment to CP (p2 • [People are slowly getting used to working with CP] (p2, • People slowly see the importance of CP for interdependencies in projects (P

o This takes time

• [CP causes improvements in overview on all projects] (p1,p2 • [CP S-curves creates better insight in delay times to baseline planning] (p1,p3 • • CP (opposed to previous department different planning’s) improves insight in dependencies between

projects (Pr • CP creates better work prioritizing. Avoiding focusing only on difficult engineering parts (Pr • CP is kept in beginning of project but later on in the project gets more complicated (P • CP creates more commitment to keep milestones on schedule (P • CP at start of project improves people knowing what is expected from them (P

o Improving work atmosphere (P • Project managers now accept the need for CP above individual planning (P • CP is indirectly consulted via COO (S • CP made creates a mote strict task deadline commitment causing catch op of time (Sc • CP has caused everybody is not individually deciding what to do (C • Increasing part of organization sees the benefits of CP (70-80%) (C

Current CP shortcomings • Existing company resistance towards CP (Pr • [At start of project there was no CP yet] (p1,p2 • [CP is not used enough] (p2 • [Much discussion about CP last two years] (p2 • [Presentation of commitment of CP of entire higher management is not strong, obstructing company

wide CP acceptance] (p2 • [Benefits of using PM tools is not presented enough to employees] (p2 • [Employees have difficulties assessing how much effort tasks will take (p2 • [Critical path of the project its difficult parts is not known or neglected and easy tasks done first] (p2 • [Before CP project team was better informed on the project itself with previous planning] (p1 • [CP currently does not give project team enough information] (p1, Pr • [Since new CP it takes more time to instruct project team on priorities] (p1 • [CP does not create enough insight in consequences of planning delays] (p1, Pr • [The work orders in the CP need to be more accurate with the reality now not taken seriously] (p1, Pr, Sc • [Level 3 planning sometimes needs to change because it is impossible to keep up with CP] (Pr, • [CP planning is regularly not met] (p1, p2, Pr • [Disagreement on CP work orders between departments and planning] (p1, Pr • Planning is often met in beginning of the project but gets harder when project progresses (P • • [Baseline should stay useable and therefore needs to be adaptable to exceptional external circumstances]

(p3 • Department planners now act more as recourse planners from there own department recourses instead of

planning towards CP (P • Only usable info in CP is production location en contractual finish dates. (T • Current CP restricts acting on problems since level 3 project changes are not projected back to CP (Sc • Benefits and goals of CP have never been presented (T,S • Often methods and tools are implement because somebody thinks this is needed, without evaluating

goals and benefits of the measure (S • CP is introduced without agreement from project managers (S


16

• CP functions adequate but the execution of the tasks in the CP can go better. The organization needs to get used to a culture where deadlines are made. Is improving (E

CP needs

• Should be CP planning from the start of the project (p2 • More use of CP (p2 • More company wide CP acceptance (p2, Pr • CP needs to give more insight in delayed planning consequences (p1,Pr • More overview on project in CP (p1, p2 • More accurate work orders needed in CP (p1, Pr, • Reflect more on CP (p2 • Work more conforming CP (p2 • More prominent place of CP in organization (p2 • Employees need to get more used to working with planning (p2 • Should be 80% standard planning for products because of repeating elements in products (p2 • Should get more full project commitment for scheduled times • Every department should have department planner committed to the CP planning (P • Planning department should get input from production en commissioning on CP and planning should

not always collect the input themselves (P,Pl • Ideally every department should have a somebody responsible for planning to align with planning the CP

(P • For planning’s there must be the ability for cross department communication and agreement between de-

partments and project leader (E • Needed interconnection between CP level 2 and level 3 (E • More detailed level 3 planning should fit the CP level 2 planning in agreement with project leader (E • Should more interconnectivity between CP and level 3 department planning’s. (E

o Should be two ways. ! Should be more recognizable points in more detailed level 3 planning matching the

higher level 2 planning (E

! Should be more up-to-date work progress reporting from level3 to CP (E,Sc o Although not fully automatic since that would be dangerous since that would make the pan-

ning to dynamic (E o Should be a tree structure of physical build up at beginning of a project that fits with all plan-

ning’s. CP is not supporting this yet. Not for project and not for budget (E o Especially important for departments at the end of the project chain

• Hour estimation for Engineering in general is based to much on target numbers, that are underestimates because of more work demands (E

• CP should give on demand insight to see witch tasks start at which moment (T, • There should be central insight in level 3 planning (Sc • Agreement from departments is needed to get planning that reflects reality (Pr • People should be forced to look at CP en anticipate on it (p3 • CP should be tool to make agreements which employees report when agreements are endangered, but

should *1 (p3 • Hours should also be budgeted (p3 • Progress should be accessible for by internet (E • CP is needed for uniform planning method (C • CP is needed to project planning on entire organization (C

o Detailed department planning to plan part of the CP is acceptable and does not compromise the CP function (C

Output Insight into delayed task estimates

• I can understand people have this opinion but I do not want to give this information (C o People should just manage doing tasks in the agreed time (C

! People do not like to take this responsibility for this because then they have to work harder (C

! Because of this project are now delivered more in time (C ! Everybody knows the culture is departments in the beginning have little overtime

and at the end ther is a lot of overtime this is changing because of this (C o And if there is a good reason you will get extra resources for it (C o People should discuss the problem and solve it (C o Also a delayed ship would not chance this this is the most easy to plan (C

• There is no need for this fead back in CP or other system (C o Work is relatively straight forward and therefore manageable (C


17

o Would require detailed planning which we are far away from (C o Would take to much planning hours (C o Control from behind desk is impossible with these projects

• Forecast in delayed tasks is not necessary because I do not change end-dates (C o If extra time is really needed they can discuss it but it needs to be a really good story (C o Delayed tasks can en should be discussed and solved in project teams (C

• Delayed actuals (up-to-date) are seen in ISA and updated every 2 weeks only estimated delay times are not shown (C

• On of the few people not wanting to provide insight in delayed task estimates (C • Showing how far tasks are behind schedule is sufficient and shown every 2 weeks (C • In the past planning’s where continuously updated since this would reflect the realty. However this only

created better planning for the project team itself. (C o These where not projectable to the entire organization (C

! Which is a absolute necessity in the growth company (C

CP obstructions • Present full CP acceptance of entire higher management(p2) obstructing company wide acceptance

(p2,Pr • Less discussion about CP (p2 • Present benefits of using PM tools [is not seen by much of the organization] (p2 • Employees should get more adequate in assessing how much effort tasks will take (p2 • Meeting and acceptance in project team of CP is determined by individual skills of a project managers

(Pr • CP should better reflect reality to be accepted (P • Yong inexperienced planning employees might cause resistance among employees against CP (P • Resistance among employees against CP could be caused because people do not want to be controlled

(P • Previous CP imitative of 8 years ago has stopt because of chanced department head with different vision

(E,T • Department vision changes because management changes and visions change (T • Incorrect and not up-to-date planning causes people not using the CP (T,

Sc • CP is restricted by varying coding & numbering between departments (Sc, • CP build up has not been aligned with departments to check on real build order (p1

CP prerequisites

• Enough preparation time for CP (p2 & time for CP agreement of responsible department heads (p1,p2, Pr,Sc

• Uniform CP reporting (p1,p2,Pr • More department acceptance of CP (p2,E,Sc,Pr

o Depends on the trust people have in CP giving accurate real information (E • Higher management presenting commitment & route for CP (p2 • Employees should ask and report on the planning (p2 • CP should have the real building order otherwise it will not be taken seriously by employees (p1, Pr • Culture changes are needed in the company to get PM methods more accepted and properly used (p2 • Baseline should be more useable and therefore needs to be adaptable to exceptional external circum-

stances (p3 • When planning is not able to be met because of external delays or building changes the CP should be

able to change to keep the CP usable and Accepted (Pr, p3,P, Sc o Decrease creation of and need for parallel individual planning between CP and level 3 de-

partment planning (p3 o To improve acceptance with usable and real planning (P o More usable for communication between on project dependencies between departments (P

• Better presentation of goals of CP and not the instrument CP itself. (S,T • Better presentation of argumentation of made choses within CP methods (S • There should be wide agreement on technical design of CP before introduction (T

o Since it affects the entire company (T • CP should be accepted by departments (Sc • CP should not be changed to often since everything is dependent on this (Sc • Lessons learned have to be included in new CP’s (needs feedback culture) (Sc • More acceptance of planning department employees and discipline (Sc • Do not believe there is resistance among employees to use CP (Csk

External delays:


18

• Contractors client not living up to schedules (p3 • Client approves delayed times

Building changes in; • production location (P • building or installation order (P • Most important thing needed for planning or CP is more cross department communication to confirm

correctness of the planning (E • Adequate project manager *see project manager role (T

CP potentials

• Overview of all CP’s would be nice to estimate available recourses. (S o Now recourses availability is verbally checked with COO to chose tenders for more innovative

products or more standard product (S o Would be better if department has recourse overview itself (S

• CP is not only very important for project communication improvement in Schiedam but also for the in-creasing importance of communication with international company locations (E

• CP that is widely accepted by departments gives project manager needed ammunition to prevent client from doing changes (E

• CP would be nice to reduce the need for several independent planning • More planning over project phases (p2 • Better project execution because of more insight where you are in a project (p2 • More planning ahead & forecast (p2 • More ability to reflect on project planning to take better account company production capacity (p2 • Get organization more committed to deadlines (p2 • More monitoring and acting on deviations from CP (p2 • More efficiency in repeating project aspects (p2 • More prediction of riskier project parts creates less people doing easy task first (p2 • More insights in grown dependencies between projects in grown organization (Pr • Uniformity of CP created better total company overview because there are not several non comparable

plannings (S • If CP where more accurate they would have more added value (S, Sc • CP could help to do projects faster (Sc • CP contributes to successful project execution by planning that can be rolled out over the organization

(C CP work culture

• Tension between incorporating more individual policy opinions and fast deciding on a policies (p2 • Tension between more reporting of cross department information and more bureaucratic work load

(p2 • Tension between habit of informal efficiency and need for more formalized information (p2 • If people do not give input to planning they should accept and execute it (P • Might be necessary to replace employees unwilling to work with CP just as done with project manage-

ment department • Employees have difficulties planning ahead (p2 • Lack of company structure prevents CP from functioning well. Like uniform WBS and PBS structures

(P o Difficult to get t uniform WBS and PBS structures (P o Difficulties formulating these (P o Non existence of WBS and PBS structures have big impact on functioning of organization

and CP (P • Most important thing needed for planning or CP is cross department communication to confirm correct-

ness of the planning (E

CP successful implemented

• CP is used and hold up to by employees (p2 • CP is easy accessible (S • CP should stay an usable as tool (p3 • CP makes decreases time to find out true planning (S • CP should be updated to up-to-date situation and not be static (T • If CP increases the overall efficiency of Huisman (S

o More work in less hours (S • Demonstrate/Convince of added value of administrative time (S


19

• Demonstrate/Convince of added value above and use of administrative documents above informal com-munication ng and not only for the master planning (Sc

o Planning department is dependent on planning changes for future projects (Sc o Planning department should decide on planning changes (Sc

• Planning should have sensibleness building order and this should be accepted by departments (p1 • Acceptance depends on realistic (p3 • Employees should give full commitment to tasks that are descried in CP (p3 • Accessibility and transparency of information determines the communicability between departments and

its success (E • If I believe it is useful to control project progress (C • If the organization sees the benefits (C


20

1.2 Risk+log++ Current RL status Input

• [Working with/ like project management is still new to the organization, so are uniform procedures](p2 o Needs new work culture (p2 o Organization is now used to day-to-day management (p2

• Working with formal risk method for own department (T • People lack the time to create the necessary information for a RL (p2 • No risk log with project handover from sales to project management (p3 • Incidents are thought of but impact is not thought of sufficient (p3 • Technical risks are more discussed with Engineering department with tight project schedule (S • Risk are sufficiently evaluated with project handover from sales to project management (S • Risks are considered by informal consideration of appropriate skilled people (S • No connecting systems between departments (T • Projects are often uncertain since there are always new elements in the projects (Pr • Currently much of the delays on projects are caused lack of cross department alignment and non recog-

nized risks (T o Recognition of risks within higher management is also very important to show that risk mitiga-

tions often taken much more time than anticipated (T •

System

• Risks are discussed with project from sales to project management handover by PowerPoint (S o Risk transfer is sufficient (S o Risks transfer is improved but needs to get better (Sc

• [No uniform risk method] (p1,p2,p3,Pr,Sc,T,

• [Individually designed and used risk method by people] (p1,p2, Sc o Spreadsheet made at project start. Calculated risk numbers are updated during project execu-

tion (p2 • [No documented risks] (Pr,Sc • There is only FMEA technical risk examination (p3 • Risk is not integrated into planning (Pl • Engineering records risks of running projects in developers log for lessons learned (E • Individual non documents risk evaluation works fine in Testing & commissioning now but could be

communicated better (T • Risk methods options are not known (T • Only formal risk method is long lead items that are checked against planning (C • Risk are considered with a lot of practical knowledge and experience (C •

Output

• Risk are often solved ad hoc (Pr • Impact of risk event discovered at experience (p3 • In planning float on tasks is mainly personally decided by planning department (Pl • No discussion after project handover from sales to project management is an illusion (S • No feedback on risks between engineering and project management (E

Current RL disadvantages

• [There is no uniform risk method that is used between departments] (p2 Needed Input

• RL build from brain storm (p3 • Re-evaluate between project phases (p3 • Prevent RL from becoming administrative annoyance (p3 • With more detailed planning RL becomes important to determine float on tasks (P

System

• Should stay simple (p3 • In planning there is much room for improvements with risk integration (Pl


21

• Should be uniform risk method in project plan made by project management (T • The whole organization should use a uniform risk procedure (T • Integrated in easy accessible company wide systems like ERP (T • Should work with uniform work instructions and uniform infrastructure (Sc

o Independent of department size • Should be part of a culture where risks are evaluated and (Sc • Same risk report should be used and communicated across departments starting with Sales (Sc • Risks assessment needs to be communicated and discussed better with departments (Sc •

Output

• Give insight in priorities (p3 • Should give reevaluation of priorities between project phases (p3 • Risk log could improve estimations of float on tasks for planning department (Pl

o And plan float more detailed over tasks instead of the entire project (Pl • Should used to evaluate and learn from risk incidents (Sc • More control on risk events (Sc • Prevents mistakes that could cost a lot of money (Sc • Risk discussion tool with client (Sc • Risk discussion tool between departments (Sc • Could help to take considered prize vs. risk consideration for suppliers (E • Risk method should be a balance between needed time and added value (T

RL needs

• Uniform methods en connecting systems needed, also for risk, in the company because knows about eve-rything that is going on (T

• More cross department risk communication with uniform risk method (p2 • More prioritized tasks based on more project risk assessment (p1,p2 • More commercial and technical risks at the beginning of handover to project management in potential

RL (p1 • More considered and documented risk mitigations in potential RL (p1 • [RL needed for project execution] (p1 • risks are needed to be communicated across departments (Sc • RL important tool for project managers (E • Risk log could help to align risks between departments (Pr

o Therefore input needs to be taken seriously (Pr • RL can help communicate risk that are not thought of from start and subsequently act on these risks (p3 • For innovative projects with RL risks could be discussed better (C • RL creates the opportunity for new employees to learn about historic project risks (C

RL prerequisites

• Examples to see how RL works and added value would help for more RL acceptance (p2 • RL should not get too complicated • RL should not take too much time • Uniform RL reporting (p1,p2,Pr • Simple tool (p1 • Someone needs to be assigned to make template and run along with project manager in project team to

monitor risks (p1 RL potentials

• RL method that is more uniformly used creates more risk communication between departments and with this more efficient project execution (p2, Pr

o RL needs change in work culture * • RL helps to prevent problems instead of solving problems. As PM should be (p2 • Help to prioritize high risk project parts (p2 • RL method that is uniformly used makes risk communication/discussion between departments possible

(p2 • Risk mitigations could be more described better (p1,p2 • Risk mitigations could be communicated better (p1,p2 • RL is added value if for technical cross department risk communication (P1 • RL is added value if for commercial cross department risk communication (P1 • RL could be added value to show what risks have been taken into account (T • Mitigate and forecasting risks is very important (T • RL very welcome after project closures to learn from risk event (Sc


22

• RL could have benefits for innovative projects but not convinced how (C RL obstructions

• Employees should get more used to working like a project management organization (p2 o (needs new work culture )

• Employees should work less like day-to-day management (p2 • People should have more time to create the necessary information input for a RL (p2 • Risk log should not take much time or be complicated (p1, E • In the begin of a introduction there will be resistance from people (Sc

o When structural extra work is needed extra people should be hired (Sc o Needs to breach negative spirals (Sc

• Most important is a RL needs to be initiated to be used (Sc • RL should be comprehensible to be used (E • Company expresses high administrative work load already (E • RL probably is not created because people do not see the urgency (C • Personally not convinced of urgency of RL an added value for me (C • If people like project management want RL they should initiate it and do a proposition (C

RL work culture

• Available Sale department time should not be spend more bureaucratic administration like RL (S • If you work with skilled people informal risks discussions are preferred above and is not needed to be

formalized and written down (S • Other work is more important than RL (S • Work pressure is to high to do formalize informal risk consideration (S • There is to much time spend on administration already (S

o Of which the added value is not seen (S • Needs department aligned, structured reporting and processes. Sc

o Some departments work more structured but not aligned with other departments (Sc • More important to spend more energy on design than spending time on RL for support in organization (S

RL successful implemented

• When RL is uniformly used among employees in communication about project risks (p2 • When there is less confrontation with risk events in design (Sc • When there is less confrontation with risk events in project execution (Sc • When aftersales gets less calls (Sc • When difference between as-build and design and corresponding risks are taken within account (Sc • Usable RL (E • Improving coordination of project execution (E • Easiness of use (p1,p3 • Usability (C

1.3 Implementation+barriers++Current implementation barriers

• Project managers do not have the time to spend time on uniform PM improvements nor have time to in-troduce new PM tools (p1,p2

• The added value of PM methods is not seen by employees (p2 • Employees are not adequate enough competent to do adequate work load estimated (p2 • Input needed for PM is not unknown by employees but is not given because they do not want (p2 • Lack of reporting standard prevent CP input improvements from production (Pr, Pm work culture • transparency of there tasks and do not want to be supervised (p2 • Employees like there work freedom en decide what to do by themselves (p2] • Methods being unknown (C • Administrative work (C • Much doing people unable to look ahead (C • Should be able to see why it is needed (C

o Personally I do not see it yet (C • Some people would not like to fill in the RL itself which will create loss of quality (C • Show what it is, what the benefits are for people that have to work with it (C •

Work culture barriers

• PM methods require cultural change to be accepted (p2,p3 o Culture change requires time (p3


23

• Gap between current work culture and needed PM work culture (p3 • Island culture (p2,Pr,p3 • People have to get used to working less independent

Implementation prerequisites

• Employees should get more explanation on what is in for them to spend time on PM tools (p2 • Employees should get more explanation on what is in for the organization (p2 • Employees should get more capable in estimating work load s (p2 • Employees should get more willing to be transparent on their work (p2

1.4 PM+work+culture+&+Company+culture+PM work culture Wanted work culture (more PM workstyle?) wat do we want to change what do we want to keep Current work culture Improvements / lacks? Structure

• Chaotic work structure culture depending on individual project manager (Pr • Structured design but ad hoc commanding needed to solve occurring problems (p3

o Company has a lack of standard structures making CP design more complicated (P o Uniform WBS en PBS structures would help to make accepted more accurate project build up

in CP (P o Now CP build up is based on individual insights (P

• Project execution and structure is dependent on individual project manager, see role project manager (S

• People currently still work more free than structured (S • Employees work less efficient since fast growth of recourses (T

o Growth is needed to fulfill demand (T • Now it is needed to spend much time calling and asking to get the right detailed planning (Sc • Would be very welcome if all departments would use the same codes and numbering (Sc • Structuring work procedures would bring needed relaxation to the organization (Sc • Central uniform PM methods should me implemented relive dominant to get them accepted (Sc • Central uniform PM methods should however also give real information to be accepted (Sc • Organization culture should be willing to give feedback on how things really went and give feedback (Sc • Organization culture is honest and conclude how much time is really spend on bureaucratic (Sc • Reporting and processes should be much more structured (Sc • Some departments more structured than others but independent from each other (Sc • PM systems are needed (Sc • PM intention needs to be there and is varies between individuals in organization (Sc • Believe we execute projects in the same way with the same project sequence already (C

o Lower in the organization people might work with more freedom but certain work freedom should

Work freedom

• Everybody feels like a project manager (p2 • Everybody wants to decide for themselves (p2 • There is no structure (p2 • Free working ways (p2 • Employees do not like transparency and prefer work freedom to decide ad hoc what they want (p2 • PM methods should not restrain flexibility to adjust to changes (like client delays) (p1)

o For workable production steering (p1) • Traditionally there can be lack of responsibility and a lot of work freedom (Pr • Before CP people only had there individual planning now they feel controlled because CP controls there

progress (P • Skillful people can see the same risks but documentation is not needed (S)

o It is more important to think of things than to write down things (S) • Now there is a good balance between killed people and structured working (S) • Now there is a good balance between bureaucratization and structure (S) • Preferably there would be standard designs for products to offer to clients to reduce discussion with cli-

ent (S) • Preferably there would be standard sets of spare parts to offer to clients to reduce discussion with client

(S) • Free work practices (T


24

• Organization was proud on free work methods (Sc • Free work methods where comfortable since no one has to take responsibility (Sc

o No one was held responsible when something goes wrong (Sc o No one gets complimented when something is done right (Sc

• Needed increase in task responsibility needs other skills than pure engineering skills (Sc o Company lacks needed proficiencies besides pure technical knowledge (Sc o like leadership, coaching and stimulating people (Sc

• Alarming free work culture. (Sc o Worrying because there are no department crossing processes (Sc o People are given a lot of freedom to do what they want (Sc o At low lever decisions are made that can have big project impact (Sc

• Free work methods are bad for cross department dependencies in project (Sc • Some employees find it very annoying to lose work freedom (Sc

o People positive and negative reasons not wanting to lose work freedom (Sc o People might not like to be held responsible (Sc o Addressing people on there responsibilities require skills that might be lacking in mainly engi-

neering driven organization (Sc o Making mistakes and being held responsible might sill be restrained by felt blaming culture

(Sc o Free working methods are mainly nice for individual and difficult for people dependent on

them (Sc • We are in the transition from very free to structure and discipline (C

o Not 100% yet but urgency to produce to planning is seen now (C • Some employers like to keep freedom (C

o But it is the work responsibility to employer to deliver (C o Do not want to work in groups. No problem as long as they deliver (C

• Some people like more structure to get more overview and more easy project execution (C • Much of the people that want free working ways are solo performers and not the best group players

(C o Are also needed in the organization but not in project management (C o Project managers need to work with and for each other (C

• Some departments really want to work more structured to give ease, clearness and overview (C • People that work more free than wanted will surface and get the chose to do tasks where this is permitted

or will automatically find a different job within or outside the company (C • In the past no goals where set and there was a open–ended engineering culture (C

o Good but never in time (C o Some may keep free working ways but they have to set goals (C

• Transformed into an project organization where everybody is supportive to the project and goals are set (C

o Some people do not like this because they did not like to be lead (C o For others the improved structure was seen as relieve (C

Task priorities

• Things are done for those who scream the loudest (p2 • Day to day management is the standard (p2 • Work task dependencies are not seen enough (p2 • Work culture has to get used to thinking ahead with planning (p2 • Work culture find it hard to life up to previously agreed appointment (p2 • Department make individual decisions although decided differently in mutual consent (p2 • People need to be actively pointed out on there schedules (p3 • People are not sufficiently able to plan ahead (P • Tasks and responsibilities seem to be pushed off (S • Responsibilities are unknown. There is no autorisation matrix (Sc

o Responsibility management is even more important as PM tools (Sc • People have had difficulties to see dependencies of tasks for others (C

o Seeing the importance of finishing individual task but not the dependency of others (C • Responsibilities for tasks should be documented better (C

o Do not think people do not want transparency (C • People often day responsibilities are unknown but this is hiding of own lack of performance (C • People hide behind not knowing company strategy to plan things like yearly department planning (C • People should be able to estimate task without demanding al sorts of information (V

Cross department information

• Company works informal like a small company as if everybody can oversee everything (p2 • Informal decisions from top management determine production capacity (S


25

• Workload estimates are not accurate (p2 • Input from departments for PM tools is (slowly) getting better (p2 • Mutual communication between departments needs to improve in general (p2

o not only to project management • Do not communicate enough (p2

o From old culture paradigm o Needs a culture shift

• To often important information on project progress comes from client where it should come from own organization (p2

• From PM tools to work efficient there is a need for input form departments (Pl • Organization is not has low acceptance of spending time on documentation (Pl,Sc

o Resistance to administration while this should save time for the organization (Sc o Should hire more people when there is persistently to much work in department (Sc o In the begin there is always resistance to administration (Sc

• To get input from departments, input has to be appreciated and taken seriously (Pr • Cross department information exchange is not transparent enough and shred (Pr • Doubt if more formalization is needed would rather reorganize to make informal communication possi-

ble (S • Communication distance between people have gotten to big because of company growth (S • Preferably there will be less discussion with client on design changes after sale (S • Cross department communication is crucial, enough but quality needs to improve (S • Strong sense of need of more information from own department but limited time and not the priority (S • When the company was smaller the company seemed to be more efficient and it is hard to accept why

this is not possible anymore only because of growth (S • Miscommunication, confusion and difference in opinions between departments on same product because

of island culture (T o Missing a product engineer responsible for product functionality (T o Need for systems for cross department information (T o Design of system is less important than getting it embedded it in the organization (T

! Execution plan and getting acceptance (T ! Tried and failed before (T

• Uniform work methods are needed in every department not only project management (T o Would improve what to expect from other departments (T

• Especially in the beginning of projects alignment on project between departments is important (Sc • Input is different from every individual even within the same department (Sc • Bringing people together and discussing what would be needed to design an uniform method already has

added value (Sc

Work attitude

• People work hard (p2 • Work procedures of project managers differ to much from each other (p2

o Because of lack of uniform PM tools, project managers want them o Project management meetings help but still difficult

• People slowly think less about improving scope (with technological improvements) for client and more about holding scope agreements. (p1

Progress

• Work culture has to get used to thinking ahead with planning (p2 o Slowly changes but much to gain

• Work culture find it hard to life up to previously agreed appointment (p2 o Slowly changes but much to gain

• Input from departments for PM tools is (slowly) getting better (p2 o

• People slowly think less about improving scope (with technological improvements) for client and more about holding scope agreements. (p1

• COO that is committed to getting CP accepted (P • Input from departments for PM tools is (slowly) getting better (p2 • Work culture still free bur is getting more structured (p1 • Progress & progress reporting is improved with uniform reporting methods (p1 • Work structure of individual project managers is improving (Pr • Island culture slowly gets less (Pr,T


26

• All department coordinators coming together is great improvement to reduce conflicts between depart-ments (Pr,Sc

o Would further improve when departments are consulted with sales (Sc • Organization is slowly getting used to working with PM (p3 • Employees are slowly seeing the importance for PM (P • Deeply founded engineering culture of thinking about task instead of project importance is slowly

changing (P • Resistance against planning gets less (P • Project managers now all accept CP (P

o Acceptance needed replacement of some project managers (P • Initiative of COO to bring department heads together reduces island culture (S • Project managers are slowly get more structured (S • Working towards wanted ERP system is long process where we are (slowly) moving to (T)

o First uniform WBS structures for products have to be agreed upon (T ! Importance seems to be underestimated (T ! Should put the right people together and than you’ll have it in a week (T

o Processes within departments are now being described (T • Testing & commissioning now working on standard documents to give input to project management (T • Just started projects seem to be better structured with PM methods (Sc • In 2 years the organization slowly moves from very ad hoc to more structure (Sc • Latest started project (DOF) improved because lessons learned have been used and a improvement in

clear at start of project has been made (Sc • In the beginning of projects alignment between departments have improved, especially with project

management& engineering (Sc • Awareness on importance of dependencies in projects is strongly increasing in the organization (Sc • Blaming culture gets less (but requires more attention) (Sc

Administration

• 30% of the time of administration of technical documents goes to finding info at other departments (T

Success factors

Needed work culture Work structure

• Work procedures should be more structured (p,1, p2 • Work procedures should be more connected to digital ERP like systems (p,1 • Employees should learn from faults in (drawings) and not copy past them to new projects (p1, • People should get more used to transparency and reporting on work progress (p2, • Cultural shift needed with good PM plan and full backup from entire higher management (p2, • People should get more familiar with PM methods like CP and RL (p2, • People should get used to administrative work for other departments (P, • Improve structure to get to agreements (p2, • More structured and professional way of discussions with clients (p1,p2 • Departments slowly communicate more with each other creating more respect and collaboration. But

much to gain (p2 • Investing time in structure in the beginning of the project makes project and multiple project execution

easier (p2,Sc • One PM standard for managing projects can not work because of needed flexibility to adapt to differ-

ences in clients and products (p1 • Uniform PM methods needed for dependencies between projects (Pr • Work structures desired by everybody for clarity (Pr,Sc

o Uniform PM methods are likely to contribute to clarity of instructions from PM (Pr ! Now instructions are contradictory or unclear (Pr

• Kick off is essential to align departments on project and agree on scope (Pr • Employees should stop using individual procedures and start uniform methods that improve over time

with experience (p3 • Uniform procedures needed to improve introduction of new employees (p3 • Somebody should be appointed to create a set of uniform procedures to execute a project (p3 • Uniform procedures should be introduced fast as good as possible and improved and adjusted along with

feedback from practice (p3 • Every department should get standards and think more in products than projects. (S


27

• Working with same documents, check list is important for standardization (S • More structure and standard products would make it easier to employ less capable employees (S • Work freedom needs to change in more structured work ways (T • Departments should deliver tasks and information finished and correct (T

o Project management should ensure this (T • Other departments accept delays to easy creating problems in the end of the project (T • Better decisions can be made is correct up-to-date information in available (T • People need to be convinced about the need for uniform work procedures in general (Sc

o Need to convince people to be able to get any PM method accepted (Sc • Standardization creates less effort to find needed information and more energy left for important issues

(Sc • Uniform PM methods will mean easier project execution for employees (E

o Means people know what to expect (E o Creates easier work transfer to new employees (E o More uniform working project managers result other departments better know what to expect

from project management (E ! Currently there is a lot of divergence how project managers work (E ! Project managers use different PM methods depending on there previous work (E

• Would be good to have more templates to prevent the need for people to develop something for them-selves (C

o To use each others knowledge (C o Will develop by itself (C

! People develop something when they have time and this will be used by others if it works well (C

! Like project sequence layout of Niek Koens (C • Improvements will also happen by itself (C

o For templates sometimes you need to push it sometime it happens by itself (C o Making templates has no priority because work also has to be developed (C o Maybe sometime a project manager can me made free to develop templates but not now (C o Template coordinator should be somebody from within the company itself not from outside (C

Work freedom

• Employees should work more with uniform PM methods (p2 • People should be more aware that employee growth causes, working informal like a small company, is

not controllable anymore (p2 • Responsibility-hierarchy for decisions should be more known (p2 • Improve ability to introduce work procedures to new colleges in Huisman &the ability to transfer pro-

jects to colleagues (p2 • People should work with less freedom and more scheduled (p3,Pl • Employees do not like to lose freedom and hand of power to project management (Pl • Work freedom has is highly valued by employees in the company (T • Responsibilities for tasks should be documented better (C

o Do not think people do not want transparency (C •

Task priorities

• Mutual agreed decisions should be more lived up to (p2 • People should increase thinking ahead and not act before thinking (p1 • Improve insight in task dependencies in projects (p2,T

o CP is good tool but needs insight in actuals (up-to-date) to be useful for department (T • Tasks are finished when department think this is appropriate without insight in up-to-date delayed times

from CP (T • Unacceptable overtime hours because of delays from other departments (T • CP functions adequate but the execution of the tasks in the CP can go better. The organization needs to

get used to a culture where deadlines are made. Is improving (C

Cross department information

• Most important thing needed for planning or CP is more cross department communication to confirm correctness of the planning (

• People should communicate more between departments with help of Pm methods (p2 o Reduce conflicts (p2

• People should be more aware of each others work (p2 • More accurate work-load estimates should be made (p2 • Less project important feedback should come via client and more from internal organization (p2


28

• More important information needs to be communicated to project management (p2 • Improve communication between departments (p2 • Cross department uniform PM methods are needed to improve discussion and get more effective project

execution (p1 o Mechanical department this is improved (p1 o Production does not react (p1

• Cross department information and collaboration is very important for successful project execution and needs to improve more (Pr

• Cross department input from production would improve when uniform reporting format is offered (Pr • Interconnection with pevel 3 planning from with CP is not there because of different software programs

(Pr o Done on purpose to keep CP intact but this makes it hard to report progress (Pr o Long term ERP would be optimum (Pr

• Standard templates that can be transferred to other projects (Pr • Standard reporting templates help to report input for Pm tools

(Pr,Pl • Project management needs to have insight in budget for hours (Pr • Project managers do to much mico management while they should take care of only the main aspects (Pr • It does not matter others than project management contact client (Pr • Needed input on production main concerns is not communicated to project management in time (p3

o Best would get input without asking (p3 o Partly solvable by weekly look ahead meetings and asking on tasks progress and obstacles (p3

! This needed active monitoring of responsibilities requires to much effort to ask from project managers (p3

o Much effort spend in team building, preparation work, communication and looking ahead for people (p3

o Uniform PM methods should make processes more easy (p3 o Tensioning with giving departments responsibility on tasks they feel more capable on (p3

• Cross department task awareness is needed (Pl • Decreasing team sizes to make communication distance smaller and efficiency higher (S

o Company might need more divisions to decrease team sizes (S • Departments need to communicate more with each other (S • Cross department communication is crucial and improved with putting together the right people (S • Employees should exchange between departments to improve support for each other and surpress polari-

zation after transferring projects • With better insight in what is going on in the company it will be easier to prioritize work focus (S

o For sales this would be more detailed and better available schedules (S • PM methods would make it easier to take into account risks in innovative projects (S • If organization would use same uniform documents (for risk considerations) departments could be more

up to date about each others work (T • Biggest problem in Huisman is nobody knows about everything that is going on in Huisman (T • Information should be easy accessible with systems. Information accessibility is most important. (T • Departments forget they have no importance without other departments and should think of what other

departments need to function effective (T o Project managers need up to date information (T

• In the beginning of projects alignment between departments should further improve, especially with sales & production en after sales is still completely missing (Sc

• Explain each other what colleagues need to do there work and explain what the connecting importance of uniform methods (Sc

• Cross department communication is essential for a company that needs to work with several departments on a product (stated as; multidisciplinary) (C

o Company growth: ! has not increased the necessity but has lowered the quality (C ! People retreat to islands (C ! It is not possible to oversee what everybody is doing after certain growth (C ! Informal ways of working become increasingly harder (C

o Creates the need for structure (C

! PM not the holy grail (C • Methods like weekly meetings help just like many others • Parts of PM methods might help • Uniform PM methods might help putting more on paper

Work attitude


29

• Less day-to-day management and work priorities should prioritized more on the importance of the entire project (p2

• People need to think of the relevance of there work to others and the total project progress (p1, p2 • People should think less on technical excellence and more on guarding agreed scope form beginning (p1 • Organization should get more used to working with project management methods (p2 • Creation of feeling of collaborative consent is important for acceptance of PM methods (p2

o Design input/agreement from departments(heads) (p2 • People should be more open to let go old habits (p2 • More uniform PM methods suite the ability for standardization of the serie-products with custom details

of Huisman (p2

PM work culture prerequisites

• If people do not give input to planning they should accept and execute it (P • People should think less about improving scope (with technological improvements) for client and more

about holding scope agreements. (p2 • More uniform PM methods needed to be able to work more as project organization (p2 • Input from departments is a prerequisite for the PM tool, like RL & CP to work (p1,p2,Pr • To get input, feedback has to be taken seriously and appreciated. (Pr • Even if input is not always directly useful appreciation has to be given and usefulness for something has

to be given back (Pr • There should be a database to store feedback (Pr

o Now only for engineering • (Afreken cultuur) Blame culture • Top down implementation of PM methods but just as important; (p2 • Bottom up input • from departments via; (p2 • Project management department manager responsible for uniform procedures (p2

o Create more feeling of collaborative consent of department o Needs to have enough body and not originate from own company

• More people from outside current culture to attribute missing expertise; (p2 • More communication and input from departments is essential for successful PM (p2 • More feeling of collaborative consent from project management department otherwise initiatives are ig-

nored and done as felt better (p2 • Added value of new PM tool for project success should be seen for needed effort (p3 • Only use needed PM parts to prevent over bureaucratization (p3 • Need to start with uniform procedures which can be fine-tuned along the way (p3 • Would be better if production capacity was more easy to analyze within department and less dependent

on informal interpretation from top management(S • Sees added value of uniform planning for department but prefers informal methods above uniform for-

mal procedures for own department (S • Mistakes should be dealt with more professionally (S

o Less blaming culture (S o Learn from mistakes (S o Give constructive feedback (S

• PM success depends on how fast information is available (S • PM success depends on how up-to-date information is (S • Proof of added value of administrative PM work (S

PM methods acceptance

• People will have more resistance working with new PM methods when they do not feel considered in the decision (T

• Important uniform PM tools should have brought consensus of departments represented with agreement of department heads (T

• I believe if people where fully honest a lot of people are not satisfied with CP but respect the COO’s de-cision

• Standard formats would help departments to give input to project management (T • (T

PM work culture barriers

• Uniform PM procedures should not limit freedom to be flexible • This is how we did this for years mentality • People are not used to work with planning and are used to doing things as they come (company culture)

(p2


30

• Organization does not know what to expect from project managers because of different work ways (p2 • Island culture and habit of limits itself to department priorities (p2 • Island culture restrain people to spend administrative time for other departments (P • Although better, lack of input for PM from departments slows down PM implementation (p2 • Lack of reporting standard prevent CP input from departments (P

o Improved with engineering, supply chain (P o Standards will useful to improve Commisioning & production (P o Lack of reporting standard prevent CP input improvements from production (Pr

• Benefits of PM tools are not seen by the organization (p2 • Project managers lack time to initiate uniform PM initiatives (p2 • No leading person in project management department to initiate uniform PM initiatives (p2 • Higher educated people could see things that go wrong more easy and could be faster to understand the

consequences because of wider knowledge (p2 • Departments have to communicate more with each other and less individual decisions to create respect

and collaboration. (p2 Slowly changes but much to gain • This is how we did this successfully for years mentality, restraining change (Pr • Failing PM tools that have been introduced to fast will lower acceptance for new introductions (p3 • Tools should not be introduced to fast without presenting the added value (p3 • PM tools should not turn into bureaucratization (p3 • PM tools should deliver reliable information (p3

o Tools have a tendency to give unreliable information (p3 • People feel very busy and therefore do not want spend on procedures (p3 • Time is the biggest barrier preventing uniform PM procedures (p3,S,T • Every individual is convinced about own procedures making it difficult to get agreement on uniform

procedures (p3 • Employees should see the importance for PM (P

o Will take time (P,Sc o Confident change will happen but will be challenging (Sc o Keep pushing to prevent people to fall back (Sc

• Young age and little experience of planners in planning department creates more resistance to planning (P

• Resistance to PM methods might require such a cultural change that people have to be replaced just as done with project management (P

• Now project management tools are often not seen as something that is imposed upon people without ad-equate consideration instead of tool to help everybody in the project (P

• Or you hire capable people or you hire less capable people with procedures (S • Project transfer to other departments does not need to include all information because they have to re-

check things for themselves and do not believe everything we write (S • Growth of company causes increased politics that is bad for projects (S • People are busy and do half work and do not take responsibility (S • Blame culture is not helping the company. Mistakes should be checked, learned from and improved and

not send to higher management to blame (S o Mistakes should not be made public (S o Solving mistakes should be stimulated (S o Blaming people in public should not be accepted without constructive attitude (S

• Lack of proof of added value of administrative PM work for oter employees (S o Unclear how all existing administrative documents are used (S

• There needs to be trust in people doing there job instead of having to document & communicate your work (S

• Do not have a problem with uniform methods but with doing more work in same time (S • Island culture is important to focus and decrease (Sc • People have to see respect the importance of there information to other departments and think project

wise not limit to department tasks (Sc • Bureaucratization should not go to far (Sc

o Uniform work processes and instructions if possible create needed relaxation (Sc o While keeping the freedom to be creative in problem solving and innovation where needed (Sc

• Bureaucratization is a much heard excuse not to start standardizing (Sc • Blaming culture keeps island culture in tact and make people defensive about needed transparency (Sc • Attention, energy and guidance (Sc

o Needs somebody designated to change management (Sc o The right change management is more important than the methods (Sc

! Change management theories not used enough (convince of need (Sc o The company lacks time and knowledge to guide change processes (Sc o Needs somebody who to guide changes and find the right changes (Sc o Change will create resistance, that you have to manage correctly (Sc


31

• No real change management till not (Sc o Selection: Good description, consideration of tools (Sc o Good roll out: Change management procedure, instructions, training, coaches, feed back on

use (Sc • If you explain why there everybody will accept because everybody experiences the disadvantages of lack

of PM methods (Sc o How does it increase uniformity, predictability and reduce faults (Sc

• Convincing employees on the method is the hard part but is needed to get accepted (Sc o Most important is to convince people uniform procedures are needed (Sc

! If this accepted the method is not really issue anymore, can be adjusted ! Impossible to fully include all opinions

o Start and make continuous improvements (Sc • PM methods must be chosen where innovation can also take place (Sc

o Therefore standardize methods a lot but keep improving this with evaluation of this methods (Sc

• Bureaucratization often mentioned as argument against uniform procedures (Sc o But now everybody is reinventing the wheel (Sc

! consuming unnecessary energy (Sc ! causing unnecessary faults (Sc

• creating unnecessary blaming (Sc • Most people see the need for uniform procedures for the entire organization but not in there own de-

partment but the neighbors (Sc • Extra bureaucratic procedures are seen as a burden within the company (E

o Only useful parts of PM methods should be used and not the full PM methods should be im-plemented (E

o RL should be pat of this (E • Implementation of PM methods is not hard anymore. Was hard and had to do with company culture (C • Like often for successful implementation explain method, explain added value for the once that have to

use it and then just start using it (C • Huisman is very tolerant with people making very expensive mistakes this comes with new employees

and very innovative work. Behavior mistakes are not acceptable (C • Huisman does not really have a appreciation culture that complements things that are done right. Can

improve • Do not believe there are examples of failed PM methods because do not believe a real PM method is ev-

er tried. Only methods that individuals thought would be good. (C o CP is not tried before only planning methods but non able to project on the total ccompany (C

Project manager functioning Now / needed

• Project managers should have more uniform work procedures (p2,Sc o More transparency on what procedures employees can expect from project management

should increase • Project managers want more uniform PM but use individually designed tools because there are no uni-

form initiatives available ( • Employees should be more able which procedures to expect from project managers (p2 • Project managers are not as present in the company yet as the organization would want them to be (T • Project managers should have a lot of technical feeling (Pr,T

o Sometimes do not have enough technical feeling (Pr o Should learn more from lessons learned previous projects (Pr

• Project manager should have overview on project form the start (Pr • Project manager should have enough knowledge on technical aspects that have been sold (Pr • Project managers should use and information and knowledge from project team (Pr • Project execution strongly influenced by how open project manager is to the client changes (S

o Less changes from client creates smoother project execution (S ! Employees are more persevered in finishing a task because task could change with

client changes (S ! However this acceptance to change should stay within client satisfaction (S ! Project manager should stay ahead of client (T

o Need for client input is also dependent on technical complexity (S • Benefits and goals of PM methods need to be explained for acceptance (S

o Otherwise you increase resistance to change • Some PM tasks are still the responsibility of department coordinators (S

o Much project management is still done by lead commissioners (T


32

• Unpredictable clients causing extra work (E o Only way to prevent this is consensus on between departments on planning and communicate

this commitment to client. (E o Needs strong project leader that does not permit lose ends from client that could be changes in

the project (E ! Project leader should have a feel for aligning its project team (E ! Project leader should have overview of internal organization and prevent or solve

disturbances (E ! Should be involved in the last phase of sales and have enough transition time from

sales to project management (E ! Guard scope to client and ask more time ore money for extra work (E

• Project managers also have to debate with responsible departments head on hour availability and should not claim this

• Project management the has 3 years become a leading department again (C Project manager skills

• Project managers should have good project management skills (Sc o Project management qualities are more important than technical knowledge (Sc

• Project managers should keep involved people together (Sc Role of project managers

• Project managers should make agreements in stead not orders, as now often is the case (p2 • Organization might not have a good idea what a project manager needs to be (p2 • Current project managers might not have a good idea what a project manager needs to be (p2 • Project managers should grow into their roles (p2 • Most of the current project managers are grown from engineers within Huisman, might create wrong im-

age of PM (p2 • Company should grow into project management (p2

Project managers are seen as; • Project engineers (p2

o Taking technical responsibility (p2 o Relieving others from annoyance (p2

• Project managers should be seen less as having technical responsibility • Project managers should be seen less as the one that relives from annoyance • Project managers should be seen as the one that makes agreements and not the one giving orders • Project managers with track record are taken more seriously by employees & these have left the compa-

ny (? • Project managers have lost a lot of weight with the loss of experienced project managers (T • Organization expects to much of project managers (T

o Should only be busy with time, money and client (T o Project managers should barley have to direct production (T o Departments should organize there own tasks better and not depend on Project management (T o The organization has to get used to the change from line to project organization decided 5

years ago • COO gave project managers the right momentum (T • COO can not also have enough time to be head of project management and roll out uniform PM methods

(T • Project management should get input delivered and not get it themselves from departments (T • Project managers are very important to align different disciplines on what is best for the project (E

PM method success

• Accurate up to date information should be more easily available without to much communication (E • Easy and uniformity will be appreciated by departments (E • Project managers are seen as useful but they should not take over the responsibility of other disciplines

and trust other disciplines in there responsibilities (E o This could improve with uniform methods (E

Acceptance of PM Acceptance of project manager

• Acceptance of project manager depends on individual project manager ( • Acceptance of project manager by employees is strongly dependent on personal skills op the project

manager. (p2,Sc • Project managers has to do much effort (p2 • Jong project managers will have difficulties being accepted (p3


33

• Experience and knowledge help getting excepted (p3 • Keeping the whole project team informed about what is going on helps getting acceptance for the total

project plan (p3 • Company wants more prominent position of project managers (T

o Is not working yet (T • Project manager should have much technical experience (T

o And strong communication (T • Now not enough decisiveness with current project managers (T • Exception is project manager GT2(p3) (…..? T,Pr

o Much determination, (Pr o Think with client and translate to company, strict but fair (…..?T? (Pr o Structured way of working (Pr o Effort in creating a team (Pr

! Respect for everybody also lower functions (Pr ! Give and trust people with responsibility (Pr

o Project management fits Huisman culture (T,Sc o but is not possible to ask from normal project managers. Cost to much energy (T

• Project managers should have determination to get accepted within prevailing company culture (Pr o Individual project manager is very important for successful project execution (Pr,

• Acceptance from employees of project manager depends on o charisma and experience op project manager (Pr o the employees acceptace of project management steering looking at project manager (Pr

! prove project management work methods improve success and helps there own in-terests (Pr

• Project manager is no engineer and should be busy with time, budget and client and for the rest they should use the available expertise and not take over there responsibilities (Pr

• Project managers should consult expert department for making decisions and not deicide on there own (Pr

• Implementation of PM methods will increase with somebody appointed to consult a limited number of people and bundle this to a reasonably accepted initial uniform PM design (p3

• In general there is not a positive attitude towards project management in the organization (T • Uniform structure and continuity is very important to get project management accepted (T

o Work methods vary to much making project managers unpredictable (T • Acceptance of project managers can always improve but is good (C

o Especially the traditional people that work here for al long time (C • Increase acceptance by showing people what the benefits are of project management structure (C

o Is done enough with coordinating people they have to spread this lower in the organization (C ! Do they fele this responsibility?

• Project managers could increase acceptance with right attitude and explain benefits of methods for the group (C

o People not wanting to participate in group interests should get other individual task (C Project manager progress

• Project managers are faster in taking over the project and getting the engineers started on the project (E • Project hand over from sales to project management goes much more structured than previously (E

o Eanvolvement of all departments creates \ • Project management the has 3 years become a leading department again (C • Project managers feel restricted in functioning because of supporting systems like ERP and break down

structures are lacking. Tis takes time and is in progress (C o ERP is seen as holy grail by everybody but it is the question which parts you want to

Company culture Present

• Project managers are not easily accepted by employees (p1,p2,p3,Sc • Requires much effort to convince employees on the need of the project management department (p3 • Company culture has a big impact on daily project execution (p2,T • Company culture has not changed with the growth of the company (p2 • Company should honestly decide where it wants to go and set out a route (p2 • Departments should improve to see the importance of their tasks for other departments and inform about

it (p2 • Top management should share and improve appearance of shared vision on where the company needs to

go (p2 • Company culture makes efficient MP difficult (PM work culture does not match with company work

culture) (p2 • Mind set towards PM is very important for successful implementation of PM methods (p2


34

• Mindset towards PM seems to be influenced by education of department heads and supervisors and in-fluences PM implementation speed (p2

• Company should take into account that change to PM culture might require higher educated and or other educated people as department supervisors (p2

• Very free working methods (Sc • Strong Island culture (Pr,p3,Pl,Sc

o People have gotten positions within departments over the years (Pr ! cross department information sharing seen as power los (Pr

o Not sharing information delays projects and creates risk (Sc o Not open to think in support of the entire project but only on department part (Pr,Pl

o Not taking into account other departments and dependencies of tasks (Pl o People do not wanting to take responsibility (S o Communicating with email instead of in person (S

• Traditionally people think as engineering organization (Pr,Sc o Rather think of technical improvements than guarding start client scope (Pr o The growth of the company should shift focus from engineering to supporting processes (Sc

! Needs different expertise in employees than engineers (slowly getting accepted) (Sc • There has been a feeling in the in production Engineering feels superior to them

o Production has to get the feeling of being taken seriously to get loyalty and involvement (Pr • Much effort needed in begin of project to get support and commitment between departments within en-

tire project team (p3 • The drive to work together as a team does not come naturally and requires a lot of persuading • Requires much energy to create respect for work between departments and importance of other depart-

ments for project success (p3 • Company culture requires to emphasize the importance of in time and completely finishing tasks for oth-

er departments (p3 • Project requires project manager to make effort to look ahead for other departments (p3 • Requires a lot of effort to get people to take imitative to solve problems and not wait for solution from

project management (p3 • Company is used to top management and older employees making fast impactful project decisions. Can

be positive as well as negative (T o Decisive fast decision making is praised by clients (T o Can be demotivating for employees since decisions from top can always happen and have

great impact on project o Can be demotivating since responsibility for decisions is overruled from others (T

! Can be demotivating for high potentials (T • (stated as: Multidisciplinary) projects that needs several departments on a product are difficult in Huis-

man since no one sees himself as problem owner (p3 o Only do tasks that are directly given (p3

• Family company with small group of people that worked there for a long time, driven by pride and pas-sion and a big new group of new employees. (T

o Might create distance between these groups ! In motivation (T ! Feeling of influence on being taken seriously and having influence (T

• Project execution and structure is dependent on individual project manager (S,Sc o Good project manager has thought project preparation (T

• Project managers should take care employees do there tasks in scheduled time (T • People chose for PM because for Huisman to work close to the project not to work with a lot of bureau-

cratic procedures (E • In the past culture money and time have not been seen as a priority (C

1.5 Project+success++Project success What is improved performance? How could PM contribute to this? Current project success

• Huisman sees current project as success (p1, p2 o This because; o People work hard (p2, o There is work progress (p2 o Client is satisfied (p1, p2

• CP would improves project success (p2, • Rl would improve project success (p1, p2


35

Current project success disadvantages • Difference with personal believed project success, namely;

o People do not to life up to agreements (p2 o Schedules are not met (p2 o Client agreements are not met (p2 o Is there a feeling something nice is created together (p2 o Time, money, quality (p2

Project success needs to be determined by;

• More united view on project success (p2 • Top management should portray a more united view on project success (p2 • People life up to agreements (p2 • Schedules are met (p2 • Client agreements are met (p2 • Feeling of something nice is created together (p2 • Client satisfaction (P1 • Time, cost, quality (p1, p2

Project success obstructions

• There does not seem to be a clear united company view on project success (p2 • Not clear that top management have same opinions on project success (p2

Project success work culture

• There does not seem to be a united view on project success (p2

1.6 Entrepreneurial+characteristics++Product characteristics This project

• Innovative (p2 • Not very innovative (p1

Current innovation advantages

• Projects are very innovative for outsiders and industry (p2 • Huisman has got a innovative character and dares to make products no one else dares to build (p2 • For Huisman itself this project and projects in general are innovative because of the unique combination

and/or upgrades of replicating parts (p2 • Innovative aspects do not influence PM possibilities but do influence project execution (p1,p2

o because; o Often repeating product parts make them suitable for standardization (p2

• Do influence project execution because o More engineering efforts (p2 o More risks (p1,p2

• Less innovative projects also benefit from PM since projects can be run more easy by less innovative project managers (p1, p2

• Less innovative projects have less need for CP (P

Current project success disadvantages • Unique combination and/or upgrades of replicating parts that cause problems. Never exactly the same

product (p2 • Lack in assessment of risks on innovative product parts and ability to plan innovative parts (p2 • 80 % of a project is build from standard products suitable for uniform procedures (p2

Project success needs

• More PM methods to improve assessment of risks on innovative product parts and improve planning (p2 o Even more because the innovative aspects is in unique combinations or improvements of repli-

cating product parts but not entirely new products (p2 • Project need to be more standardized with procedures since replicating parts are well suited for this. (p2 • For 80% of a project there should be standard planning available (p2 • Projects that have been repeated more often are more easy to do CP on newer innovative projects require

more input from project team (p3

Appendix(III:!Cross!case%Matrix"

This excel appendix will be printed on A3 in final report. The excel file is available in de folder (Extra ap-pendixes Fit-for-purpose PM)

For example paragraph 4.3.2 are conclusions based on the row in the matrix shown in Figure 19.

Figure 19: Example of origin of conclusions from paragraph 4.3.2, in cross-case matrix

The succeeding sub-paragraphs correspond to the code before the statements that have been used to deduce the conclusions. For example the conclusions in paragraph 4.3.1.1 have been derived from the codes 1 in the Annex: cross-case matrix as sown in

Figure 20: Example of origin of conclusions from paragraph 4.3.1.1, in cross-case matrix


38


39


40

Appendix!IV:"Interview"protocol!(in$Dutch)$!"

Categorie))(from)logic)model)))))

Subcategorie) ID)Vraag)#)

Vraag) Ant:woorden)

0.Introductie"(2.min)"

Thesis"onder!werp"

X" Dit"interview"is"een"verkenning"naar"succesvolle"en"bruikbare"PM"methode"voor"de"projecten"van"Huisman" "0.1" Centrale"planning"en"gebruik"van"risk"log"zijn"twee"veel"gebruikte"voorbeelden"van"PM"methode"die"ik"als"kapstok"wil"gebruiken"binnen"het"

interview"Deze$focus$en$de$interviewvragen$volgen$uit$een$analyse$van$ervaren$problemen$binnen$de$Problem$Execution$groep$van$het$Improvement$Program$en$overleg$met$mijn$afstudeer$commissie$vanuit$de$TU$Delft$en$Huisman$met$Dirk$en$Robert$

"

0.2" Zijn"deze"twee"methode"bij"u"bekend?"Centrale"planning"zoals"bij"Huisman."Risk"log"als"in"een"methode"waar"actief"risico’s"worden"geïnven!tariseerd"en"gemonitord"tijden"project"uitvoering.""

"

Interview"op!bouw"

0.3" Is"het"goed"als"ik"het"gesprek"met"de"telefoon"opneem?"" "" Het"interview"zal"ongeveer"1"uur"duren" "" Na"het"interview:"interview"report"in"telegram"stijl"van"interview."Hiermee$hoop$ik$dat$u$het$interview$nu$zo$open"mogelijk$benaderd.$NaderE

hand$mag$u$altijd$aangeven$dat$u$uitspraken$liever$vertrouwelijk$houd.$$"

0.4" Wat"is"het"meest"recente"afgeronde"project"waar"u"bij"betrokken"was?"Ik$richt$het$interview$graag$op$dit$project,$soms$zal$ik$in$de$vragen$ook$naar$uw$ervaringen$met$andere$projecten$vragen,$maar$dit$maak$ik$dan$expliciet.$$"

"

0.5" Wanneer"is"dit"project"begonnen"en"afgerond?"" "0.6" Leeftijd"/"functie$/"jaren"PM"/"jaren"PM"in"Huisman"/"aantal"projecten"/"studie"achtergrond"" "0.7" Heeft"u"nog"vragen"voor"ik"met"het"interview"begin?" "

)1.PM"charac!teristics"(8min.)))"

Centrale"plan!ning"

1A" Gebruikt)u)centrale)planning)bij)u)recent)afgeronde)project?"Wat"is"de"status"van"invoering?"Hoe"beïnvloed"de"start"van"het"project"en"de"project"uitvoering?"*1"Level1,"Level2"en"Level3*1"

Hoe"zou"u"willen"dat"het"zou"functioneren?""Hoe"kan"het"helpen"u"werk"beter"uit"te"voeren?"Wat"zou"u"weerhouden"van"het"gebruik"ervan?""Is"er"naar"jou"weten"ooit"een"initiatief"geweest"voor"CP?"

"

Risk"log" 1B" Gebruikt)u)een)rik)log)bij)u)recent)afgeronde)project?"Wat"is"de"status"van"invoering?"Hoe"zou"het"de"project"start"en"project"uitvoering"kunnen"beïnvloeden?"*1"

Hoe"zou"u"willen"dat"het"zou"functioneren?"Hoe"kan"het"helpen"u"werk"beter"uit"te"voeren?"Wat"zou"u"weerhouden"van"het"gebruik"ervan?"Is"er"naar"jou"weten"ooit"een"initiatief"geweest"voor"CP?"

"

2."PM"Culture" Werkwijze" 2.1" Hoe"karakteriseert"u"de"werkwijze"van"projectuitvoering"tijdens"dit"project,"voor"u"en"u"collega’s?"(b"Zou"u"dat"“vrij”"noemen,"of"“gestructu! "


42



Vraag) Ant:woorden)

(2min.)" reerd”?"7."Succesvol"project"(2min.)"

Project"succes" 7." Was"uw"project"succesvol?"In"welk"opzicht?""Hoe"had"centrale"planning"en"risk"log"hier"verder"in"kunnen"bijdragen?"""

"

4.Entrepeneurial"aspects"(2min)""

Innovatie"van"producten""

4.1" Hoe"innovatief"was"het"project?"Beïnvloedt"dit"de"mogelijkheden"van"centrale"planning"en"risk"log?"" "

3.Implementation"barriers"(2min)""

PM"invoer"be!lemmeringen"

3.1" Wat"zijn"redenen"dat"centrale"planning"en"een"risk"log"niet"(ten"volle)"zijn"gebruikt"in"het"project?"""

"

5.Company"culture"(2min)"

Bedrijfscultuur" 5.1" Hoe"heeft"bedrijfscultuur"van"Huisman"het"project"beïnvloed?""Hoe"beïnvloedt"de"mind!set"t.o.v."project"management"binnen"verschillende"afdelingen"de"projectuitvoer?"""

"

"1.PM"charac!teristics"(5min.)))

Algemene"be!hoefte"PM"

1.1" Bent"u"van"mening"dat"Huisman"meer"volgens"uniforme"PM"methode"zou"moeten"werken?" "1.2" Hoe"onderscheid"de"projectuitvoer"van"uw"project"zich"met"andere"uitgevoerde"projecten"binnen"Huisman?"" "1.3" Hoe"zou"invoeren"van"meer"uniforme"PM"methode"uitvoering"van"projecten"beïnvloeden?"" "

2."PM"Culture"(2min.)"

PM"werkwijze" 2.2" Karakteriseert"Huisman"zich"in"het"door"vrije"of"gestructureerde"PM"werkwijze?"Wat"merkt"u"hiervan?"" "

6.Successful"PM"practices""(2min.)"

Succes"PM"me!thode"

6.1" Wat"bepaalt"voor"u"of"de"invoer"van"centrale"planning"succesvol"is?""En"wat"bepaalt"voor"u"of"de"invoer"van"risk"log"succesvol"is?""

"

4.Entrepeneurial"aspects"(2min)"

Innovatie"van"producten"

4.2" In"hoeverre"verschillen"de"producten"van"huisman"qua"innovativiteit?"" "

3.Implementation"barriers"(2min)"

PM"invoer"be!lemmeringen"

3.2" Wat"denk"u"dat"de"invoer"van"PM"methoden"in"Huisman"met"name"belemmert?" "

"5.Company"culture"

Bedrijfscultuur" 5.2" Wat"karakteriseert"de"bedrijfscultuur"binnen"Huisman"en"hoe"heeft"dit"invloed"op"de"uitvoering"van"projecten?" "


43



Vraag) Ant:woorden)

(2min)")

8.Fit"for"pur!pose"PM"(20"Min)"

Fit!for!purpose"PM"

3.3" Als"u"rekening"houdt"met"de"karakteristieken"van"Huisman,"hoe"zou"u"dan,"als"u"het"voor"het"zeggen"had,"een"PM"methode"(zoals"bv."cen!trale"planning"of"risk"log)"invoeren"binnen"Huisman?"

"

5.3" Hoe"zou"de"mind"set"binnen"de"verschillende"afdelingen"de"invoer"van"PM"methode"kunnen"beïnvloeden?"""

"

2.3"3.4"

Hoe"beïnvloed"de"samenwerking"&"communicatie"van"benodigde"informatie"tussen"de"afdelingen"de"PM"methode?"*1"Verantwoordelijkheid$en$transparantie.$Is$deze$communicatie$er$nu$voldoende?""

"

2.4" Hoe"zou"het"invoeren"van"meer"uniforme"PM"methode"(als"centrale"planning"&"risk"log)"het"uitvoeren"van"projecten"beïnvloeden,"voor"u"en"uw"collega’s?""

"

4.3" Hoe"kunnen"PM"methodes"worden"aangepast"op"het"innovatieve"karakter"van"huisman"projecten?"(hoe"voor"centrale"planning"&"risk"log)" "9.Afsluiting"(10min)""""

Afsluiting"""

9.1" Wat"vond"u"de"meest"interessante"vraag"in"het"interview?" "9.2" Wat"ben"ik"vergeten"te"vragen?"" "9.4" Wie"zijn"volgens"u"de"meest"interessante"mensen"voor"vervolg"interviews?"(LM,"PC"andere"PM)" "X" Dank"voor"het"interview."Ik"stuur"u"een"kort"verslag"van"het"interview"op"zodat"u"het"kan"controleren"voor"ik"het"in"mijn"analyse"en"eindrap!

port""verwerk.""


45

Appendix(V:(Scheme(for(research(question!1!


46

Appendix!VI:"Scheme&for&research&question&2!


47


48

Appendix!VII:"Scheme&for&research&question&3!

20-12-2013 Towards the introduction of fit-for-purpose project management (Full Version)

Documents

Transcript of 20-12-2013 Towards the introduction of fit-for-purpose project management (Full Version)