Problems Identified and Underlying Causes There are three major problems identified in the Trophy Project case study: i)Organisational problems ii)Management and Leadership problems iii)Project Management problems i)Organisational Problems Although there are signs that the company has a matrix structure in place, they do not follow a programme management approach and numerous failures within the structure exist. Their approach to management is still that of a traditional organisational approach, which tends management to lack both strategic purpose and customer focus.
The effectiveness of this structure is negated by poor implementation and lack of support for project managers by the project office and line managers. The organisational structure is not well applied and does not support projects. There is mention made of a program office, but no programme manager. The program office was not involved from the start, and was also the reason for the project being in trouble right from the start. The company is that of a bureaucratic organisation and not a learning organisation. There is no skills development, increased learning and knowledge transfer, learning from past mistakes and continuous improvement.
The company allows complacency where no one takes responsibility. Top management did not take any responsibility for the failure of the project,
There is no efficient utilization of resources, as line managers have the resources working for them on their own pet projects. There were not adequate resources and staff assigned to run the project. The program schedule started to slip because of resources problems, and expenditures were excessive. There is a lack of functionality in the organisation. When the project showed all the signs of failure, corporate staff ordered remedial action and staff support to provide Reichart the opportunity to get his project back on track.
Reichart found himself reporting to the operations manager instead of a programme manager in the existing program office. Reichart did not have any authority in his position as project manager, even though he was being held accountable for the success of the project. When Reichart complained about direct labour being charged to his project, he was told not to meddle with functional managers’ allocation of resources and budgeted expenditure. The functional managers were creating problems and Reichart had no control over them. There was no trust from top management, line managers or employees towards Reichart, and also amongst staff.
Corporate staff was not capable of managing and controlling the project, and therefore had group staff meddling by assigning an assistant project manager to the project. A situation of mistrust between company and customer developed which ultimately ended with the placing of a customer representative on site. The relationship between the customer and the representative deteriorated when Reichart expressed his concern about the scope changes that the client felt were at no cost. There was no support from top management or line managers.
The resources, that were assigned to the project by the line managers, were inadequate to stay at the required pace. There was no support from the project office when Reichart was told to report to the operations manager and no longer their office. Top management provided no support when Reichart complained about the line managers charging direct labour time to the project. As a result of lack of support, Reichart found himself in an activity trap where he was spending more time compiling reports and preparing paperwork for corporate staff than administering the project.
The project was subjected to very poor planning and unnecessary introduction of systems to help with the project. The program schedules began to slip as from day one. Poor resources were allocated to the project. Although remedial procedures and plans were attempted to be put in place, the development and implementation of the computer program was not planned thoroughly. The company wasted $50 000 on a computer program that did not get implemented due to the system’s inability to track the problems. There was no contingency plan put in place when the vendors who were supplying components for the project were running behind schedule.
Due to the poor planning of the project, the project was completed one year behind schedule and at 40% cost overrun. Commitment and communication problems occurred right through the organisation because of the psychological climate and structure of the organisation. Top management was not directly involved in the well being of the project – they only discovered six months later that the project was in trouble. Even then, top management did not enforce the required resource support to be provided by the functional managers.
The lack of commitment from the functional managers was evident when direct labour time was being charged to the Trophy project and inadequate staff was being allocated to the project. Feedback to corporate and division staff was only requested after six months, i. e. no regular progress meetings were held. The functional managers did not provide adequate staff for recovery, assuming that the additional manpower Reichart had received from corporate would accomplish the task. Short and informal lines of communication were not developed and maintained.
Total Quality Management is absent from the organisation. The company is not focused on continuously improving process performance through measurement of Key Performance Indicators, followed by appraisal and review. There is the absence of a BSPM (Balanced Scorecard Programme Management) approach for leading and managing the organisation in terms of translating the strategy to operational terms, aligning the organisation to create synergy, making strategy everyone’s everyday job and most importantly, mobilising change through executive leadership.
There is very poor customer satisfaction, service and focus. The client realised that the project was in trouble and requested that the division general manager and his entire staff visit the customer’s plant for progress and a ‘get well’ report. Instead the division general manager sent Reichart, the project manager, and four line managers to visit the customer. The situation deteriorated to such an extent that the customer assigned a representative to Reichart’s department to be ‘on site’ and provide constant updates and problem identifications.
The company’s vision and strategic direction is not clearly communicated and acted upon by all members. Functional managers are working on their own pet projects, which are not contributing towards the strategic objective of the company. The organisation has no clear focus and has unclear and unrealistic performance expectations. Reichart was being held responsible for the success of the project and was threatened with dismissal by the corporate vice president, with no support from top management or functional managers.
There was also a lack of integrity on the functional managers’ part, as they were booking direct labour time to the trophy project while working on their own pet projects. Fairness did not exist in the company. Reichart was being held responsible for the trophy project, although no action was taken against the line managers that were booking direct labour time to his project. Exactly the opposite happened – Reichart was told not to meddle with functional managers’ allocation of resources and budgeted expenditure. Organisational olitics prevailed. No assistance was given to team members to reduce the pressure. Line managers were adding problems to the project, thereby adding additional pressure to Reichart’s workload to complete the project. Resources were also under pressure as they were unable to keep up with the pace at which the project was being managed. ii)Management and Leadership problems There is a lack of leadership from top management. The company’s top leadership failed in all seven of the attributes common to successful organisations in terms of: Effective leadership on the company’s strategy and people – the corporate vice president’s comments about blaming Reichart is not congruent to achieving total quality management by achieving excellence. The decision to send Reichart instead of the division general manager to see an angry customer shows a lack of a value system within top management. •Emphasis on customer requirements by putting the customer first – the decision to send Reichart instead of the division general manager to see an angry customer does not put the customer first and shows a lack of respect and understanding.
The engagement with the customer is not open, continuous and a two-way communication process. There is no Balanced Scorecard in place to measure customer satisfaction. The customer’s frustration and criticism is not adequately responded to by top management. •Commitment to continuous improvement – practices were not adopted that encouraged employees to continually identify and act upon opportunities to improve, and to provide them with regular feedback. Double-loop learning, coaching and knowledge management was not encouraged.
There was no measurement, appraisal and review of strategic benefits delivered by all processes, based on critical success factors and key performance indicators linked to a Balanced Scorecard. •Learning and growth strategy where mistakes are built on as opportunities for growth – Reichart was given no training in project management skills or conflict management to enable him to grow as a project manager. An approach was taken where mistakes were not identified to learn from, but to punish. Human resource development – nothing on the ‘soft side’ of the company was adhered to in terms of realising that changes in the way work is organised produces corresponding changes in demands for human resource development, employees must identify and build on employee strengths and through training ensure that they acquire the necessary adaptive skills essential for their job, commitment to continuously upgrade and improve the skills of all employees is ongoing, and employer-employee co-operation is essential, which requires mutual respect for employees’ rights as well as the organisation’s needs. Process of quality assurance systems – Total Quality Management is absent. •Effective information systems to improve informed decision-making – leadership focused on an information system which could still not meet the required needs, but underestimated the resources assigned to the project that could keep up with the pace. Poor planning led to wastage of time, money and resources. Leadership clearly failed in engendering passion, inspiring the persons they were suppose to lead, goals setting processes, growth and development, coaching and mentoring, directing human effort and building the organisation’s experience curve.
Congruence between organisational culture and climate is absent in terms of: •Innovation – change and creativity were not encouraged in the organisation, which included risk-taking into new areas or areas where the member had little or no prior experience, even though Reichart had attempted to make the project work without any formal training, coaching or mentorship from the company. •Trust – there was no perception of freedom to communicate openly with members at higher levels with the expectation that the integrity of such communications would not be violated.
When Reichart complained about functional managers booking direct labour time against his project, he was told to stop meddling with the functional managers’ allocation of resources and expenditure. •Integrity – there was no honesty and truthfulness from the functional managers when they started booking direct labour time to the trophy project, while working on their own pet projects. •Competence – The resources could not keep up with the pace at hich the project was being administered. •Loyalty – there was no loyalty towards Reichart in protecting him and saving face for him. When the customer became impatient and angry, the division general manager sent Reichart and four line managers to the customer’s plant, instead of going himself. When the project ran into trouble, Reichart was threatened with dismissal by the corporate vice president. •Openness – there was no willingness to share ideas and information freely.
Each line manager was protecting his own interests and was not contributing to the success of the project. •Autonomy – there was no degree of empowerment whereby Reichart could manage the project with greater freedom. He was being managed more by the line managers and operations manager than the project office. There was no self-determination with respect to work procedures – the functional managers did not recognize the importance of their role on the project. Cohesion – there was no perception of togetherness or sharing within the organisation’s setting. Line manager were adding more problems to the project than working together with Reichart to ensure the successful completion of the project. •Support – there was no perception of the tolerance of member behaviour by superiors, including the willingness to let employees learn from their mistake without fear of reprisal. Reichart was threatened by the corporate vice president should the project not succeed.
There was no support from top management when a decision was made by corporate staff that Reichart report to the operations manager and no longer the program office. There was also no support from top management when Reichart complained about line managers booking direct labour time to his project while working on their own pet projects, or when he had inadequate staff to work with. There was no support from the functional managers. •Recognition – There were no signs of the perception that the contributions made by employees were acknowledged.
Although the client complimented Reichart on his good presentation, top management never gave him recognition for all his effort Fairness – there was no perception that organisational practices were equitable. Line managers were booking direct labour time to Reichart’s project with no remorse, and no actions were taken against them by top management. However, Reichart was being held accountable for the success of his project without the necessary authority to handle the problems, mentoring or coaching as a project manager. •Pressure – the rophy project started lagging behind from day one. Reichart was under a lot of pressure to get the project back on track and completed successfully, but with no support from top management or line managers. Instead, additional pressure was added by management by overloading his current tasks with more paperwork and reports. Top management were acting more like managers than leaders in terms of focusing more on the short term that the long term, managing the status quo instead of challenging the status quo, and fulfilling a role of maintaining rather than developing.
Top management have failed to act on the early warning signs of organisational decline in terms of: •tolerance of incompetence of line managers supporting Reichart, •cumbersome administrative procedures – Reichart was doing more paperwork that administering the project •scarcity of clear goals and decision benchmarks – wrong prioritization with the introduction of a computer program, client requirements, lack of company vision and strategic goals •loss of effective communication – line manager assumed that resources were no longer required after corporate staff had assigned 12 additional resources to the trophy project, Reichart was only required to report to management 6 months into the project •There was an increased “scape-goating” by leaders – no one was taking responsibility. The division general manager passed his responsibilities onto Reichart, showing again there is no control over the managers, and they do as they please •there was resistance to change – Reichart was told not to meddle with line managers’ allocation of resources and expenditure
Top management failed in their leadership by not ensuring that human capital is properly understood and relationships managed by transforming human capital (individual) into social capital (teams). There was no leadership. Leadership is defined as “a social influence process in which the leader seeks the voluntary participation of subordinates in an effort to reach organisational goals”. iii)Project Management problems There was a lack of project management experience on Reichart’s side. Although Reichart had been involved with the project from its conception, it was in the capacity as an assistant project manager, and not as a full project manager. Reichart, as the project manager, did not have the necessary knowledge, experience or authority regarding the control of the financial budget of the project.
Expenditure started to be excessive due to a lack of control, and functional managers making use of this opportunity to cover their own overhead costs by booking direct labour time against Reichart’s budget. Reichart had no insight in the selection of human resources as supplied by the functional managers. The staff were unable to sustain the required pace, let alone make up for any lost time due to their inability to function on the required level. Reichart was unable to resolve the conflict within the project, which only added to the escalation of problems, delays in schedules and excessive expenditure. Reichart did not take a stand to rectify the problems and to sort it out.
Instead, he allowed himself to be used as the ‘scapegoat’ when no one else was taking any responsibility. When Reichart complained about functional managers charging direct labour time to his project, he was told not to meddle in the functional manager’s allocation of resources and budgeted expenditures. Reichart should have reported this to top management. Reichart knew that the project was in trouble right from the start. Instead of making top management or the program office aware of the problems, he only reported this 6 months into the project to corporate and division staffs. When group staff assigned an assistant program manager to the project,
Reichart did not stay in charge of the project. Instead he allowed the project to lose focus by concentrating on a computer system to track progress and problems. This project was eventually abandoned after $50 000 was spent on the computer program due to the inability of the system to handle program objectives. When Reichart was threatened by the corporate vice president that he would be in serious trouble if he could not get the project back on track, Reichart should have insisted on having the necessary authority to ensure that the project was completed successfully. Instead he accepted the responsibility without having the necessary authority.
Due to Reichart’s lack of experience, coaching and mentoring, he was unable to perform the functions associated with project planning, scheduling and controlling. Instead of delegating some of the work, he found himself being bogged down by paperwork instead of administering the project. On an individual level, Reichart did not mentor, coach, inspire or motivate team members. He did not build teams, create cohesion, or resolve conflict at the group level. Reichart did not build culture and create change at the organisational level. There was no project initiation and life cycle. Program schedules started to slip from day one, and expenditures were excessive.
This is due to poor project planning from the project manager’s side. There was no contingency plan when vendors that where supplying the components starting running behind schedule. The customer representative interfered with the project, and this caused more delays and unhappiness as nobody agreed on anything. This also caused in deterioration in the relationship between client and producer. 3. Recommendations The following recommendations are made as remedial to above problems and causes stated: i)Introduction of a Balanced Scorecard ii)Implementation of a Communication Plan iii)Well functioning Matrix Structure iv)Change Management v)Use of accepted Programme and Project Management techniques and tools )The Balanced Scorecard The introduction of a Balanced Scorecard should be brought into the company, which is a performance planning and measurement framework. The Balanced Scorecard is a tool to execute and monitor the organisational strategy by using a combination of financial and non financial measures. It is designed to translate vision and strategy into objectives and measures across four balanced perspectives: financial, customers, internal business process and learning and growth. It gives a framework ensuring that the strategy is translated into a coherent set of performance measures. Implementing Balanced Scorecards typically includes four processes: 1.
Translating the vision into operational goals 2. Communication the vision and link it to individual performance 3. Business planning; 4. Feedback and learning, and adjusting the strategy accordingly. The Balanced Scorecard is a framework, or what can be best characterized as a “strategic management system” that claims to incorporate all quantitative and abstract measures of true importance to the enterprise. The Balanced Scorecard provides managers with the instrumentation they need to navigate to future competitive success. Balanced Scorecard is a performance management tool. Although it helps focus managers’ attention on strategic issues and the management of the mplementation of strategy, it is important to remember that the Balanced Scorecard itself has no role in the formation of strategy. Balanced Scorecards can comfortably co-exist with strategic planning systems and other tools. The grouping of performance measures in general categories (perspectives) is seen to aid in the gathering and selection of the appropriate performance measures for the enterprise. Four general perspectives have been proposed by the Balanced Scorecard: •Financial perspective •Customer perspective •Internal process perspective •Learning and growth perspective The financial perspective examines if the company’s implementation and execution of its strategy are contributing to the bottom-line improvement of the company.
It represents the long-term strategic objectives of the organisation and thus it incorporates the tangible outcomes of the strategy in traditional financial terms. Three possible stages are rapid growth, sustain and harvest. Financial objectives are measures for the growth stage will stem from the development and growth of the organisation which will lead to increased sales volumes, acquisition of new customers, growth in revenues, etc. The sustain stage on the other hand will be characterized by measures that evaluate the effectiveness of the organisation to manage its operations and costs, by calculating the return on investment, the return on capital employed, etc. Finally, the harvest stage will be based on cash flow analysis with measures such as payback periods and revenue volume.
Some of the most common financial measures that incorporated in the financial perspective are EVA, revenue growth, costs, profit margins, cash flow, net operating income, etc. The customer perspective defines the value proposition that the organisation will apply in order to satisfy customers and thus generate more sales to the most desired customer groups. The measures that are selected for the customer perspective should measure both the value that is delivered to the customer which may involve time, quality, performance and service and cost and the outcomes that come as a result of this value proposition (e. g. customer satisfaction, market share).
The value proposition can be centered on one of the three: operational excellence, customer intimacy or product leadership, while maintaining threshold levels at the other two. The internal process perspective is concerned with the processes that create and deliver the customer value proposition. It focuses on all the activities and key processes required in order for the company to excel at providing the value expected by the customer both productively and efficiently. These can include both short-term and long-term objectives as well as incorporating innovative process development in order to stimulate improvement. In order to identify the measures that correspond to the internal process perspective, it is proposed using certain clusters that group similar value creating processes in an organisation.
The cluster for the internal process perspective are operations management (by expanding and deepening relations), innovation (by new products and services) and regulatory and social (by establishing good relations with the external stakeholders). The learning and growth perspective is the foundation of any strategy and focuses on the intangible assets of an organisation, mainly on the internal skills and capabilities that are required to support the value-creating internal processes. The learning and growth perspective is concerned with the jobs (human capital), the systems (information capital), and the climate (organisational capital) of the enterprise. These three factors relate to the infrastructure that is needed in order to enable ambitious objectives in the other three perspectives to be achieved.
This of course will be in the long term, since an improvement in the learning and growth perspective will require certain expenditures that may decrease short-term financial results, whilst contributing to long-term success. The following is a summarized schematic presentation of a Balanced Scorecard: FIGURE 1: The Balanced Scorecard ii)Implementation of a Communication Plan Project communication includes the processes required to ensure timely and appropriate generation, collection, dissemination, storage and ultimate disposition of project information. It provides the critical links among people, ideas and information that are necessary for success.
Everyone involved in the project must be prepared to send and receive communications in the project “language” and must understand how the communications they are involved in as individuals affect the project as a whole. The following provides an overview of the major processes: a)Communication Planning – determining the information and communications needs of the stakeholders: who needs what information, when will they need it, and how will it be given to them. This should be done as part of the earliest project phases. The results of this process should be reviewed regularly throughout the project and revised as needed to ensure continued applicability. )Information Distribution – making needed information available to project stakeholders in a timely manner. It includes implementing the communications management plan as well as responding to unexpected requests for information. c)Performance Reporting – collecting and disseminating performance information in order to provide stakeholders with information about how resources are being used to achieve project objectives. This includes status reporting, progress measurement, and forecasting. Performance reporting should generally provide information on scope, schedule, cost and quality. Many projects also require information on risk and procurement. )Administrative Closure – generating, gathering, and dissemination information to formalize phase or project completion. Administrative closure consists of verifying and documenting project results to formalise acceptance of the product of the project by the client. It includes collection of project records, ensuring that they reflect final specifications, analysis of project success and effectiveness, and archiving such information for future use. Administrative closure activities should not be delayed until project completion. Each phase of the project should be properly closed to ensure that important and useful information is not lost. The following figure provides an overview of the above processes:
FIGURE 2: Project Communications Management Overview iii)Well functioning Matrix structure Although there are signs that the company has a matrix structure in place, they do not follow a programme management approach and numerous failures within the structure exist. Their approach to management is still that of a traditional organisational approach, which tends management to lack both strategic purpose and customer focus. The effectiveness of this structure is negated by poor implementation and lack of support for project managers by the project office and line managers. The organisational structure is not well applied and does not support projects.
There is mention made of a program office, but no programme manager. The company is that of a bureaucratic organisation and not a learning organisation. There is no skills development, increased learning and knowledge transfer, learning from past mistakes and continuous improvement. The recommended solution is a Matrix structure through which a strategy of Program and Project Management is implemented. The following model depicts the current status quo of the company: INITIAL TROPHY PROJECT STRUCTURE FIGURE 3: Initial Trophy Project Structure The following model depicts a recommended approach to integrating the functions into the Company structure with the introduction of a well functioning program office:
PROPOSED TROPHY PROJECT STRUCTURE FIGURE 4: Proposed Trophy Project Structure The program manager should focus on directing all phases of programs/projects from inception through completion. In addition, the program manager must have sufficient technical knowledge for the execution of programs to measure progress against plans, identify and resolve technical problems early, and make sure that design and systems solutions achieve the highest level of customer (internally and externally) satisfaction. The role of the program manager is to: •Be responsible for managing one or more programs •Responsible for cost, schedule, and technical performance.
In addition, he or she will be responsible for providing overall project management leadership and turn-key projects •Responsible for overall Project Management metrics. Manages and reports all financial aspects of the project. Develops and maintains project schedule. Directs and administers project-related activities so as to ensure that projects are completed on time and within internal and external quality/specification requirements. •Oversee projects requiring managing and ensuring the performance of all requirements analyses, feasibility studies, and cost/benefit analyses associated with system / design engineering planning activities, testing and evaluations efforts and integration activities are accomplished in accordance with best practices. Create an environment that that results in outstanding customer satisfaction through the interaction with clients at all levels of the client organisation. •Maintains and adheres to the project financial plans, ensures all contractual requirements are performed on time and to the customer satisfaction, reviews, and approves all requirements and ensures adequate resources are available to implement required tasks, working closely with the customer point of contract to establish clear reporting and tasking points of contract. •Formulates and reviews program plans, subcontracting, and deliverable items, while determining contract costs and ensuring conformity with contract terms and conditions. The key factors to program management are: Governance – the structure, process, and procedure to control operations and changes to performance objectives •Standards – Define the performance architecture •Alignment – The program must support higher level vision, goals and objectives •Assurance – Verify and validate the program, ensuring adherence to standards and alignment with the vision •Management – Ensure there are regular reviews, there is accountability, and that management of projects, stakeholders and suppliers is in place •Integration – Optimize performance across the program value chain, functionally and technically •Finances – Tracking of finances and basic costs together with wider costs of administering the program •Infrastructure – Allocation of resources influences the cost and success of the program. Planning – Develop the plan bringing together the information on projects, resources, timescales, monitoring and control •Improvement – Continuously assess performance; research and develop new capabilities; and systemically apply learning and knowledge to the program. The project manager should focus on developing a structural strategy, which pertains to improving the organisational architecture and design, with the aim of creating new relationships in cross functional teams for achieving high performance. The team should follow an approach, in an integrated, systemic implementation that pays equal attention to creating new behaviours, relationships and processes. In developing a new structural strategy, the emphasis should be on developing a project team that has more definite project leadership in the form of an effective project manager.
The role of the project manager is to: •Develop and co-ordinate the project teams skill cross-functionally within the company, while coaching. •Motivate and support team members to develop into a high performance team. •Measure and evaluate organisational excellence implementation. •Co-ordinate resources with line managers so that the functional and project disciplines compliment one another. iv)Change Management Change management has an impact on efficiency and effectiveness in the work place and it is therefore incumbent on employers to facilitate a change management process in such a way that “enables the transition from a current state to a desired future state. ”
Management’s responsibility (and that of administration in case of political changes) is to detect trends in the macro-environment as well as in the micro-environment so as to be able to identify changes and initiate programs. It is important to estimate what impact a change will have on employee behaviour patterns, work processes, technological requirements, and motivation. Management must assess what employee reactions will be and craft a change program that will provide support as workers go through the process of accepting change. The program must then be implemented, disseminated throughout the organisation, monitored for effectiveness, and adjusted where necessary.
Change management is a basic skill in which most leaders and managers need to be competent. When leaders or managers are planning to manage change, there are five key principles that need to be kept in mind: •Different people react differently to change •Everyone has fundamental needs that have to be met •Change often involves a loss, and people go through the “loss curve” •Expectations need to be managed realistically •Fears have to be dealt with Change management requires multiple people in the organisation to fulfill different roles – including senior leaders, managers, supervisors and project teams. Resistance to change is one of the main reasons changes fail – and also a key driver for using change management.
The following guidelines may be followed when managing change: •Give people information – be open and honest about the facts, but don’t give overoptimistic speculation. Meet their OPENNESS needs, but in a way that does not set UNREALISTIC EXPECTATIONS. •Produce a communication strategy that ensures information is disseminated efficiently and comprehensively to everyone (don’t let the grapevine take over). E. g. : tell everyone at the same time. However, follow this up with individual interviews to produce a personal strategy for dealing with the change. This helps to recognise and deal appropriately with the INDIVIDUAL REACTION to change. •Give people choices to make, and be honest about the possible consequences of those choices.
Meet their CONTROL and INCLUSION needs •Give people time, to express their views, and support their decision making, providing coaching, counseling or information as appropriate, to help them through the LOSS CURVE •Where the changes involves a loss, identify what will or might replace that loss – loss is easier to cope with if there is something to replace it. This will help assuage potential FEARS. •Where it is possible to do so, give individuals opportunity to express their concerns and provide reassurances – also to help assuage potential FEARS. •Keep observing good management practice, such as making time for informal discussion and feedback (even though the pressure might seem that it is reasonable to let such things slip – during difficult change such practices are even more important). Where you are embarking on a large change program, you should treat it as a project. That means you apply all the rigours of project management to the change process – producing plans, allocating resources, appointing a steering board and/or project sponsor etc. The above principles should form part of the project objectives. The following activity model may be used in implementing change management: FIGURE 5: Activity Model for Change Management Organisational Development entails the alignment of human resource development strategies with organisational objectives. In the process the organisation can be assured that the performance and development of each employee would support organisational effectiveness achievement.
The deliverables of the alignment of human resource development strategies with organisational objectives are the following: •Competence-based job descriptions •Personal training and development plans that link performance deficiencies to development solutions; •Workplace Skills Plans based on competence; •Objective, competence-based skills audits of the total organisation; •Competence-based recruitment and selection basis; and •Competence-based performance management system The following model can be used for Organisational Development: FIGURE 6: Organisational Development Process Model v)Use of accepted Programme and Project Management techniques and tools
Project Management Body of Knowledge is an inclusive term that describes the sum of knowledge within the profession of project management as defined by the Project Management Institute (PMI), and provides the project management framework within which all projects should be managed for effective delivery. The following diagram illustrated the core PMBOK Principles that need to be adhered to for a successful project lifecycle and completion: FIGURE 7: PMBOK Principles 4. Conclusion Our case analysis confirms the belief that the company has a matrix structure in place, but is not being implemented effectively and is not being well applied in terms of aligning project objectives to the company’s strategic objectives.
The three major problems identified in the trophy project are Organisational problems, Management and Leadership problems and Project Management problems. The company is experiencing organisational problems in terms of management lacking both strategic purpose and customer focus. The company is that of a bureaucratic organisation and not a learning organisation. There is mention made of a program office, but no programme manager to support project managers. Commitment and communication problems occurred right through the organisation because of the psychological climate and structure of the organisation. Total Quality Management is absent from the organisation.
The company is not focused on continuously improving process performance through measurement of Key Performance Indicators, followed by appraisal and review. The company is experiencing Management and Leadership problems in terms of top management not taking responsibility for the failure of the project by lack of leadership and communication. The company allows complacency where no one takes responsibility. There was no support from top management or line managers. Project Management problems are being experienced within the company. Project managers are not well experienced and are not given the necessary authority to ensure the successful completion of their projects. The project was subjected to very poor planning and unnecessary introduction of systems to help with the project.
The introdution of a Balanced Scorecard will enable the company to identify Key Performance Indicators against which achievements can be measured against. The implementation of a Communication Plan will assist with the processes required to ensure timely and appropriate generation, collection, dissemination, storage and ultimate disposition of project information. It provides the critical links among people, ideas and information that are necessary for success. A recommended solution would also be a Matrix structure through which a strategy of Program and Project Management is implemented. There is mention made of a program office, but no programme manager.
Change Management is also provided as a solution, as this process has a direct impact on efficiency and effectiveness in the work place and it is therefore incumbent on employers to facilitate a change management process in such a way that “enables the transition from a current state to a desired future state. ” 5. Bibliography 1. Project Management – A systems approach to planning scheduling and controlling, 7th Edition, Harold Kerzner, PhD 2. Effective Project Management, International Student Edition, Cements / Gido 3. Module 2, Programme Managing Organisational Performance and Innovative Improvement, Prof P Steyn and Prof E Schmikl 4. Project Communications Management, 1996 Project Management Institute, USA