Unit 3 – Activity 1
This was a very interesting time to evaluate project management and relate it to a recent program implementation at my workplace. This week specifically, we are finalizing the steps before going live with a huge corporate initiative that has been in the works for over two years. Although the nature of the project is still under embargo and I am unable to share publically what the details are, I will do my best to articulate some of the problems, learnings, and methods used during this process.
The project undertaking is the largest program implementation our organization has launched in over 50 years and is related to a customer experience enhancing program. The problem can be classified as a Type II problem situation where the issue is very clear; however, the potential solutions are not (Conway, Masters, & Thorold, 2017). Dozens of departments are involved and almost one hundred personnel touchpoints were included throughout the process.
The basic project management framework was used from the beginning and included the very broad stages of initiating, planning, executing, monitoring, and closing phases (Knolscape, 2013). This was specifically outlined at the vision sharing introductory meeting and all parties involved were crystal clear on the intention, vision, and overall direction of the project.
As the months went on, it became obvious that the project was facing diversity and barriers along the way. These included regulation, legal, and infrastructure problems. Teams were set up to tackle the barriers and work around them based on the circumstances they were faced with demonstrating agility which allowed the project to move forward (Conway et al., 2017). Although the external barriers were being managed one step at a time, the real issues began to arise from within. In my opinion, the lack of one solitary project manager appointment was the first mistake. There were various “leaders” appointed to oversee the project, however, there was no central voice of truth or ultimate accountability. With communication being one of most critical skill sets when implementing change (Watt, 2014), the lack of unified messaging negatively impacted the dissemination of key information throughout the stages of this project. Several different communication channels led by the various leaders caused inefficient message delivery and altered expectations between working groups.
Although the context is within a different industry, the success seen through the University of Central Florida (n.d.) regarding the alignment from all levels of the project group, including executive level individuals all the way to the supporting team members is essential to the success of the initiative. In our case, we definitely had leadership; however, it was not unified and ultimately caused disorganization.
Overall, I don’t believe there was a true systems method for planning, there were interpretations from each person on how they thought the project should look and be executed however there was no real system or structure in place, simply a vision on what problem needed to be solved. In hindsight, knowing what I know now about finding the balance between systems thinking and acting like an entrepreneur, I believe that the systems approach laid out by Conway et al. (2017) outlines the method well and how I see myself managing ill-defined projects in the future. With a focus on the problem, the problem situation, and the power dynamics while combining the actions of an entrepreneur, where creativity, navigation through barriers, and a more unconventional approach to design, can allow for a strong balance to execute projects in large corporate environments.
Conway, R., Masters, J., & Thorold, J., (2017). From design thinking to systems change: How to invest in innovation for social impact. Royal Society of Arts, Action and Research Centre.
Knolscape. (2013). Introduction to Project Management.
University of Central Florida (n.d.). Institutional capacity and readiness.
Watt, A. (2014). Project Management. Victoria, BC: BCcampus.