Visionary Project
From FORwiki
(Difference between revisions)
(→Concept) |
|||
(4 intermediate revisions not shown) | |||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
'''Visionary Project''' is the third lecture from a module on [[Project Visions and Visioning|Visions and Visioning]], first taught to graduate students from the Communication Faculty of the National School for Political and Administration Studies (Romania). | '''Visionary Project''' is the third lecture from a module on [[Project Visions and Visioning|Visions and Visioning]], first taught to graduate students from the Communication Faculty of the National School for Political and Administration Studies (Romania). | ||
- | === No | + | === No Vision, No Projects === |
[[File:Vision-project.png]] | [[File:Vision-project.png]] | ||
- | ==== | + | ==== project management - a troubled discipline ==== |
<ul> | <ul> | ||
Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
<li>relationship school - how are projects generated?</li> | <li>relationship school - how are projects generated?</li> | ||
<li>decision school - why do projects continue to live?</li> | <li>decision school - why do projects continue to live?</li> | ||
+ | </ul> | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== cross-fertilization ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | <ul> | ||
+ | <li>a simple and clear-cut definition of project and project management would be a difficult feat</li> | ||
+ | <li>projects are defined as complex sets of activities, complex tasks, organizational structures, organization processes, transactions, networks, large-scale investments</li> | ||
+ | <li>some overlap and shared ideas are discerned regarding project definition, such as temporarity, complexity, and interdisciplinary</li> | ||
+ | </ul> | ||
+ | |||
+ | === Temporary Social Systems === | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== temporary organisation ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | <ul> | ||
+ | <li>the time dimension is reflected by various concepts that are being used: temporary work, temporary systems, projectification and temporary organisations | ||
+ | <li>groups of people collaborating to accomplish a joint task with the duration of the collaboration explicitly fixed, either by a specific date or by the attainment of a predefined task or condition | ||
+ | </ul> | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== some features of TOs ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | <ul> | ||
+ | <li>a set of diversely skilled people working together on a complex task over a limited period of time | ||
+ | <li>limited in duration and membership, and in which people come together, interact, create something, and then disband | ||
+ | <li>structures of limited duration that operate within and between permanent organisations. | ||
+ | <li>bringing together a group of people who are unfamiliar with one another’s skills, but must work interdependently on complex tasks | ||
+ | <li>separate legal and financial entities set up for a specific task and dissolved upon its completion | ||
+ | </ul> | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== communalities & variables ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | <ul> | ||
+ | <li>four common elements: | ||
+ | <ul> | ||
+ | <li>limited duration | ||
+ | <li>one or more tasks to achieve, which are the reason for which the TO is set up | ||
+ | <li>one or more teams interacting and working on the task(s) | ||
+ | <li>the production of change through action and the completion of tasks(s) | ||
+ | </ul> | ||
+ | <li>variables: | ||
+ | <ul> | ||
+ | <li>the complexity of the tasks | ||
+ | <li>the level of uncertainty as to whether the objective will be met | ||
+ | <li>the interdependence of team members | ||
+ | <li>limited resources (time, instruments, budget) | ||
+ | <li>the degree of red tape within the TO | ||
+ | <li>leadership style | ||
+ | <li>methods and styles of communication | ||
+ | <li>levels of complexity of intra- or inter-organisational TOs | ||
+ | level of isolation and/or interdependence of the TO with respect to the organisational contexts | ||
+ | </ul> | ||
+ | </ul> | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== interorganisational TOs ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | <ul> | ||
+ | <li>composed of independent and sovereign organizations collaborating mainly to contribute to a common task | ||
+ | characteristic elements: | ||
+ | <ul> | ||
+ | <li>partnerships | ||
+ | <li>team structure | ||
+ | <li>goals | ||
+ | <li>roles | ||
+ | <li>responsibilities | ||
+ | <li>products | ||
+ | <li>paperwork | ||
+ | <li>assessment criteria | ||
+ | </ul> | ||
+ | </ul> | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== trans-national European projects ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | <ul> | ||
+ | <li>pre-project - the preparation and planning of the project proposal and the establishment of the consortium | ||
+ | <li>implementation, monitoring and on-going evaluation of the project work-plan | ||
+ | <li>reporting – sets out and clarifies achieved, on-going and final results and deliverables and their consistency with planned aims, objectives, defined resources and timing. | ||
+ | <li>exploitation and mainstreaming - criteria in assessing the projects’ effectiveness and results | ||
+ | </ul> | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== ITOs organizational dimension ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | <ul> | ||
+ | <li>micro: core partners - information, decision-making, co-ordination flows, work flows are most stable over time | ||
+ | <li>meso: partner’s consortium - competences and roles are defined during the bid preparation stage | ||
+ | <li>macro: stakeholder network - fragile with respect to external stresses | ||
+ | </ul> | ||
+ | |||
+ | === Shrinking Time === | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== life in the dromosphere ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | <ul> | ||
+ | <li> in this new world of accelerated reality, traditional planning becomes in many ways a contradictory effort | ||
+ | <li> planning requires a model that structures the world and allows change to be studied in a context that is assumed to remain stable | ||
+ | <li> planning works best when the dimensions of the problem remain the same | ||
+ | </ul> | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== strategic information systems ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | <ul> | ||
+ | <li>IS developed with the intention of furthering or enabling a specific strategy | ||
+ | <li>most important SIS applications are those which enable an organization to form its future relationship with its environment | ||
+ | <li>the challenge is to break the rules of the past and structure IS to meet a variety of changing information requirements, some of which cannot even be known before the systems are built | ||
+ | </ul> | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== vision failures ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | <ul> | ||
+ | <li>the problem is that, by modeling processes and structures as they are at present, SIS developments are failing to take into account future requirements | ||
+ | <li>detrimental effects: | ||
+ | <ul> | ||
+ | <li>the organisation's SIS development effort will be diverted or wasted | ||
+ | <li>the SIS will not support the organisation's long-term strategy | ||
+ | <li>the organisation's strategic flexibility may be compromised | ||
+ | </ul> | ||
+ | </ul> | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== step 1: conception ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | <ul> | ||
+ | <li>creative, generative mental process, probably with a high degree of originality and with relatively little formality or routine | ||
+ | <li>potential techniques may support the process: | ||
+ | <ul> | ||
+ | <li>creativity methods – ”blue-sky thinking”, ”brainstorming”, ”world caffe” | ||
+ | <li>abstractization – SWOT, TOWS, STEEP, PESTE analysis | ||
+ | </ul> | ||
+ | </ul> | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== step 2: interpretation ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | <ul> | ||
+ | <li>abstract and intuitive qualities of vision are at odds with the precision which is necessary for analysing, specifying and designing information systems | ||
+ | <li>support: | ||
+ | <ul> | ||
+ | <li>focussing techiques – SODA (Strategic Options Development & Analysis), SCA (Strategic Choice Approach) | ||
+ | <li>giving meaning - semantic analysis techniques | ||
+ | </ul> | ||
+ | </ul> | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== step 3: intention ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | <ul> | ||
+ | <li>interpretation of the abstract vision onto achievable objectives, define targets and levels of performance | ||
+ | <li>techniques for: | ||
+ | <ul> | ||
+ | <li>objective-setting – Strategic Options Generator, ICA model | ||
+ | <li>target-setting – CSF (critical success factor analysis) | ||
+ | </ul> | ||
+ | </ul> | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== step 4: synthesis ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | <ul> | ||
+ | <li>contributions of the various participants and the various strategic options which have been identified at the previous stage are synthesized into ”a single ambition” | ||
+ | <li>practices | ||
+ | <ul> | ||
+ | <li>participation – soft systems methodology | ||
+ | <li>consensus-building – Delphi technique | ||
+ | </ul> | ||
+ | </ul> | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== step 5: integration ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | <ul> | ||
+ | <li>communicating the agreed values, norms, behviours and having them accepted as the ”cultural norm” | ||
+ | <li>components: | ||
+ | <ul> | ||
+ | <li>communication techniques | ||
+ | <li>inspiration - inspiring the participants to accept and follow the vision; team-building techniques | ||
+ | </ul> | ||
+ | </ul> | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== step 6: implementation ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | <ul> | ||
+ | <li>the information system would be designed as it should be, not as it is presently | ||
+ | <li>architectures and models are based largely on normal analysis and design techniques such as entity-relationship models, data flow diagrams and a variety of referential matrixes | ||
+ | <li>the approach may be forward-looking, but the techniques for developing requirements don’t support it | ||
+ | </ul> | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== what about the nature of projects? ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | <ul> | ||
+ | <li>the structural relation between project and vision crumbles, as the vision implodes into a project that is both determined by the vision and its container | ||
+ | <li>the project is re-shaped into an evolutionary endeavor, in which even the word “project” is recursively re-imprinted | ||
+ | <li>the reason for “project” proves to be internal, rather than external, while dissatisfaction is revealed to result from alienation, rather than stress factors | ||
+ | </ul> | ||
+ | |||
+ | === Concept === | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== probing the future ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | <ul> | ||
+ | <li>a concept car is a car prototype made to showcase a new vehicle’s styling, technology, and overall design before production | ||
+ | <li>they are often shown at motor shows to gauge customer reaction to new and radical designs which may or may not have a chance of being produced | ||
+ | </ul> | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== concept vehicles ==== | ||
+ | |||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
+ | <li>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94jBukpqCgM Toyota Concept Car] | ||
+ | <li>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_o_v47fzHQ Mercedes Concept Car] | ||
+ | <li>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owPFH53rtbM BMW Concept Car] | ||
+ | <li>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9Z-aT4oBl0 Chevrolet Concept Car] | ||
+ | <li>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xmuSCT6FnE Dacia Concept Car] | ||
+ | </ul> |
Current revision as of 08:26, 13 December 2012
Project Visions and Visioning | |
---|---|
This article is developed within the scope of the Project Visions and Visioning, an effort to enhance Foresight learning through collaborative work. |
Visionary Project is the third lecture from a module on Visions and Visioning, first taught to graduate students from the Communication Faculty of the National School for Political and Administration Studies (Romania).
Contents |
No Vision, No Projects
project management - a troubled discipline
- optimization school - how to plan a project?
- factor school - what determines a project’s success?
- contingency school - why do projects differ?
- behavior school - how do projects behave?
- governance school - how are projects governed?
- relationship school - how are projects generated?
- decision school - why do projects continue to live?
cross-fertilization
- a simple and clear-cut definition of project and project management would be a difficult feat
- projects are defined as complex sets of activities, complex tasks, organizational structures, organization processes, transactions, networks, large-scale investments
- some overlap and shared ideas are discerned regarding project definition, such as temporarity, complexity, and interdisciplinary
Temporary Social Systems
temporary organisation
- the time dimension is reflected by various concepts that are being used: temporary work, temporary systems, projectification and temporary organisations
- groups of people collaborating to accomplish a joint task with the duration of the collaboration explicitly fixed, either by a specific date or by the attainment of a predefined task or condition
some features of TOs
- a set of diversely skilled people working together on a complex task over a limited period of time
- limited in duration and membership, and in which people come together, interact, create something, and then disband
- structures of limited duration that operate within and between permanent organisations.
- bringing together a group of people who are unfamiliar with one another’s skills, but must work interdependently on complex tasks
- separate legal and financial entities set up for a specific task and dissolved upon its completion
communalities & variables
- four common elements:
- limited duration
- one or more tasks to achieve, which are the reason for which the TO is set up
- one or more teams interacting and working on the task(s)
- the production of change through action and the completion of tasks(s)
- variables:
- the complexity of the tasks
- the level of uncertainty as to whether the objective will be met
- the interdependence of team members
- limited resources (time, instruments, budget)
- the degree of red tape within the TO
- leadership style
- methods and styles of communication
- levels of complexity of intra- or inter-organisational TOs level of isolation and/or interdependence of the TO with respect to the organisational contexts
interorganisational TOs
- composed of independent and sovereign organizations collaborating mainly to contribute to a common task
characteristic elements:
- partnerships
- team structure
- goals
- roles
- responsibilities
- products
- paperwork
- assessment criteria
trans-national European projects
- pre-project - the preparation and planning of the project proposal and the establishment of the consortium
- implementation, monitoring and on-going evaluation of the project work-plan
- reporting – sets out and clarifies achieved, on-going and final results and deliverables and their consistency with planned aims, objectives, defined resources and timing.
- exploitation and mainstreaming - criteria in assessing the projects’ effectiveness and results
ITOs organizational dimension
- micro: core partners - information, decision-making, co-ordination flows, work flows are most stable over time
- meso: partner’s consortium - competences and roles are defined during the bid preparation stage
- macro: stakeholder network - fragile with respect to external stresses
Shrinking Time
life in the dromosphere
- in this new world of accelerated reality, traditional planning becomes in many ways a contradictory effort
- planning requires a model that structures the world and allows change to be studied in a context that is assumed to remain stable
- planning works best when the dimensions of the problem remain the same
strategic information systems
- IS developed with the intention of furthering or enabling a specific strategy
- most important SIS applications are those which enable an organization to form its future relationship with its environment
- the challenge is to break the rules of the past and structure IS to meet a variety of changing information requirements, some of which cannot even be known before the systems are built
vision failures
- the problem is that, by modeling processes and structures as they are at present, SIS developments are failing to take into account future requirements
- detrimental effects:
- the organisation's SIS development effort will be diverted or wasted
- the SIS will not support the organisation's long-term strategy
- the organisation's strategic flexibility may be compromised
step 1: conception
- creative, generative mental process, probably with a high degree of originality and with relatively little formality or routine
- potential techniques may support the process:
- creativity methods – ”blue-sky thinking”, ”brainstorming”, ”world caffe”
- abstractization – SWOT, TOWS, STEEP, PESTE analysis
step 2: interpretation
- abstract and intuitive qualities of vision are at odds with the precision which is necessary for analysing, specifying and designing information systems
- support:
- focussing techiques – SODA (Strategic Options Development & Analysis), SCA (Strategic Choice Approach)
- giving meaning - semantic analysis techniques
step 3: intention
- interpretation of the abstract vision onto achievable objectives, define targets and levels of performance
- techniques for:
- objective-setting – Strategic Options Generator, ICA model
- target-setting – CSF (critical success factor analysis)
step 4: synthesis
- contributions of the various participants and the various strategic options which have been identified at the previous stage are synthesized into ”a single ambition”
- practices
- participation – soft systems methodology
- consensus-building – Delphi technique
step 5: integration
- communicating the agreed values, norms, behviours and having them accepted as the ”cultural norm”
- components:
- communication techniques
- inspiration - inspiring the participants to accept and follow the vision; team-building techniques
step 6: implementation
- the information system would be designed as it should be, not as it is presently
- architectures and models are based largely on normal analysis and design techniques such as entity-relationship models, data flow diagrams and a variety of referential matrixes
- the approach may be forward-looking, but the techniques for developing requirements don’t support it
what about the nature of projects?
- the structural relation between project and vision crumbles, as the vision implodes into a project that is both determined by the vision and its container
- the project is re-shaped into an evolutionary endeavor, in which even the word “project” is recursively re-imprinted
- the reason for “project” proves to be internal, rather than external, while dissatisfaction is revealed to result from alienation, rather than stress factors
Concept
probing the future
- a concept car is a car prototype made to showcase a new vehicle’s styling, technology, and overall design before production
- they are often shown at motor shows to gauge customer reaction to new and radical designs which may or may not have a chance of being produced