If you are working in a dynamic environment then some of the dynamic project management techniques in this blog might be useful to you, but how do you know you are working in a dynamic environment?
Lets contrast two extremes, … a project in a static environment with one in a dynamic environment…
Table 1 - Comparing static with dynamic (Collyer 2013, p142)
| Static Environments Stability Is the Norm | Dynamic Environments Rapid Change Is the Norm |
| The future is mostly predictable Goals are stationary Environment is relatively static – changes yearly or over decades | The future is difficult to predict Goals are moving High technology – changes daily or weekly |
| Change brings more harm than good Allowing change is mostly damaging | Change brings more good than harm Resisting change is mostly damaging |
| Work is directable like a bullet – like a factory production line | Work is guidable like a missile like – cars in traffic guided by drivers, rules and signs |
| Business cases stay valid | Business cases change constantly |
| Strategic input is required at the start | Strategic input is required throughout |
| Goal Achievement Targeting system compatible with stability of target | |
| Aimed bullet Aim, aim, fire A detailed plan hits a stationery target – Initial plan focuses on maximum accuracy
An accurate plan saves repetition Goal: Time/cost/quality | Guided Missile Aim, fire, aim Rapid feedback hits a moving target Initial plan focus on expedient –adequacy An adjustable plan achieves expedience Goal: Optimised business benefits |
|
Control Control approaches compatible with predictability of environment | |
| Control with detailed plans,- processes and checklists | Guide with a framework plan, -boundaries, inputs, goals, discussions |
| Higher emphasis on control to achieve goals (reduce change) | Higher emphasis on adaption to achieve goals (relinquish some control) |
|
Duration Project duration compatible with component product lifecycles | |
| Gain economies of scale with size | Achieve relevance with quick iterative releases
|
|
Culture Flexible, collaborative, organic, adaptive | |
| Rigid Formal Authoritarian, tall hierarchy Planned, strict, structured Stakeholders expect and – understand static environments | Flexible Formal framework, informal core Collaborative, flat hierarchy Organic, experimental, adaptive Stakeholders expect and – understand dynamic environments |
|
Communication Rapid Informal complimenting Less Regular Formal | |
| Only formal counts Slow, formal, thorough Tall hierarchy Formal informs informal | Mix of formal and informal Includes rapid, informal, and practical Flat hierarchy Informal and formal inform each other |
|
Leadership Exploratory Vision driven using Collaboration and Delegation | |
| Drives down path Clear view of path Highly structured Knows the path Leads a hierarchy Plans dictated centrally Manages with plan Workers follow plan Team driven from above | Explores around the path Clear vision of destination Highly adaptable Knows the jungle Collaborates with a team Actions decided by team Guides with intent Specialists deliver vision Team pursues goals |
|
Decision Making Rapid – adequate – in time | |
| Decisions focused on accuracy Accuracy achieves lasting perfection Intent and objectives set at top Decisions made at the top based – on information passed up the – hierarchy Action taken when confident of –right decision Planning for the next stage occurs – when execution for previous stage is complete
| Decisions focused on expedience Speed capitalises on fleeting opportunity Intent and objectives set at top Decisions made in the middle –by experts with situational/subject – matter knowledge Action taken in time to capitalise – on fleeting opportunities Planning for the next stage occurs in –parallel with execution, and some –decisions prepared in advance based –on intelligence gathering on possible –outcomes |
The reality is most projects lie somewhere in between these two extremes, and so we need to use professional judgement to work out which techniques to apply to a given project.
References
Collyer, S. (2013). Managing Dynamism in Projects - A Theory-Building Study of Approaches Used in Practice, The University of Queensland. PhD
Collyer, S., Warren, C., Hemsley, B., & Stevens, C. (2010). Aim Fire Aim - Project Planning Styles in Dynamic Environments Project Management Journal, 41(4), 108-121. doi: 10.1002/pmj.20199
Collyer, S., Warren, C. M. J. (2009). Project Management Approaches for Dynamic Environments, International Journal of Project Management, 27(4), 355-364
