Dynamic Project Management in a Changing World

By Bjarne Stark, LearningConsultant Søren Christensen and Kristian Kreiner* have founded their book “Projektledelse i

løstkoblede systemer” on a notion similar to that of many educational theorists,

namely that the world is ever-changing, and as such it is difficult to predict the

best possible solution to a problem during an earlier stage of planning. Learning

therefore becomes a necessary antecedent to development, and so any project

must be seen in the overall context of a learning process; the goal being to glean

knowledge of the task and its premises during the process. In an ideal world, one

might have all the information required for sound project planning immediately

available, and the world would remain constant and unchanging throughout the

project. “Projects usually operate with inadequate knowledge, in turbulent

settings and on vague or ambiguous expectations”1. Accordingly, all projects are

regarded as having a latent information and knowledge shortfall, which C & K

identify as project management in an imperfect world. Central to this perspective

is that the unknown doesn’t simply consist of unforeseeable problems, but “also

contains the possibilities, that may bring us closer to those developmental goals

we presumed as realistic at the point of design”.2

The KaosPilot style of project work is dynamic and arises from the ability to

initiate and execute value-based and pioneering projects. Within this -as with C &

K- there exists a tie to project work as a form of guide-orientated framework for

organising activities toward a well-defined result. This latter is often referred to

as a classic project approach. The term “dynamic project approach” is inspired by

C & K, but originates to my knowledge from the KaosPilots, as a method of

project understanding and as a work form that particularly focuses on the

dynamic aspects of project management and project work. This includes aspects

such as ideation, governance of goal and vision, handling complexity and change

and also group dynamics and motivation.

* Copenhagen Business School - Hereafter: C & K 1 Translation from Søren Christensen & Kristian Kreiner, ”Projektledelse i Løstkoblede

Systemer”, s.9, Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag 2001. 2 Translation from Søren Christensen & Kristian Kreiner, ”Projektledelse i Løstkoblede

Systemer”, s.55, Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag 2001.

At the heart of the KaosPilot approach to innovative project work then, is the

observation that predefining results make less sense than aiming towards

constant and ongoing development of the project outcome throughout the

project. The KaosPilot project approach is rooted in practical methods and

processes and so constitutes the primary body of student practice.

I personally believe that most project managers will say that both dynamic and

classic approaches are present in their project work. The distinction then, is more

about what aspect is acknowledged as instructive.3

One of the most interesting aspects of Christensen and Kreiner’s

conceptualisation is their overall regard of the project process as an ongoing

learning process. The project outcome is developed through a continuous

interplay with the milieu as we become more knowledgeable about the conditions,

premises and possibilities that the task implies.

Following from this, we can practicably divide the project “task” into four phases

shaped by the dynamic frame of thought. At the same time, more importance is

given to other processes/elements of the project, as compared to a classic project

approach.

1: Goal setting phase

(Dynamic mindset = motivation vs. the classic mindset = precision)

An overall description of the project is in focus: what is the relevance, usefulness

and meaning of the project? Central to this project phase is the conscious work

with the participants’ motivation through the establishing of a project vision. A

vision has qualitative abilities, which on the one hand makes it a poor starting

point for planning, and on the other hand makes it capable of mobilising a great

deal of resources –both economic and mental.4

In order to bridge the gap between the flexible vision and the more operational

project goals, C & K suggest the term latent project goals as something that is of

temporary character and is subject to continuous assessment. The absence of

clear-cut goals carries with it the risk of stagnating the development process.

3 Søren Christensen & Kristian Kreiner, ”Projektledelse i Løstkoblede Systemer”, Jurist- og

Økonomforbundets Forlag 2001. 4 Søren Christensen & Kristian Kreiner, ”Projektledelse i Løstkoblede Systemer”, s.57

Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag 2001.

2: The planning phase

(Mindset: symbolism vs. realism)

Projects are subjected to significant uncertainty, and under these conditions it

may make sense to manage project goals as tentative and situation specific

substantiations of a vision, rather than as concrete and binding to the projects

end results.

Traditionally, project plans act as process manuals for those activities tabled for

completion. However, this becomes problematic when the project and its

conditions are continuously under development. Instead then, plans might be

regarded as a mirror to which real and tangible situations might be related: these

should partake in defining what aberrations need a new stance5 (the plan is

nothing, planning is everything).

Regarding plans as symbolic also opens up the possibility to transform them into

attractive (unrealistic/ambitious) goals that promote participant engagement and

creativity in solving the task.

Absence of project plans will result in difficulties for the projects surroundings

when relating to the project, and so may impact progress. Completely unrealistic

plans undermine project integrity and diminish motivation.

3: Implementation phase

(Mindset: exploration vs. control)

This is where we normally expect the implementation of the various activities

described in the plan, and the tangible realisation of the stated goals. The project

manager’s task is reduced to a supervisory and authoritative function.

“For the dynamic project manager, the task is hardly as uncomplicated: when the

project is built on a vision that is only provisionally defined in concrete terms

(latent goals); and when the project plan only equips us with a mirror, through

which we may recognise and evaluate the process, but that does not contain any

form for manual or handbook; there is a situational need for a different form for

project management than simply the reactive, supervisory and controlling form”6.

This might be described using the popular phrasing management vs. leadership.

In this, great demand is held to the project manager’s (or project group’s) ability

to take decisions and not be afraid to take risks. The latter is among other things

5 Søren Christensen & Kristian Kreiner, ”Projektledelse i Løstkoblede Systemer”, s.63 +

s66, Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag 2001. 6 Søren Christensen & Kristian Kreiner, ”Projektledelse i Løstkoblede Systemer”, s.73,

Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag 2001.

in order to be able to see and exploit any unforeseen opportunities that might

arise during the implementation of the project.

“We know what we are omitting when we transform the project process into a

learning process; but for sound reasons we cannot know what we are given

instead. If we assume that the feeling of safety that is brought about using a

rational basis is false, the central challenge becomes to continuously maintain the

project as a relevant and meaningful challenge for the participants, in such a way

that participation is kept to a high degree and in such a way that the

responsibility for success (completion of targets) is placed with the participants”.7

Success is here understood as the ability to reach the developed project targets

through an ongoing development of the plans for project activity. In short, one

might say that its not about following the plan, but rather about having a plan;

not about reaching a result, but rather about reaching a useable and -according

to context- ideal result.

4: Evaluation

(Mindset: strategy/common sense (learning) vs. justice/measurement)

In the context of the more traditional classic perspective evaluation is about

knowing what we were supposed to attain with the project, and as such the

evaluation task is to ascertain how much we actually accomplished.

In a dynamic project we know what we have accomplished; the evaluation tasks

is therefore to ascertain what we have attained with this.

In this way, the perspective moves from being retrospective to forward-looking.

In the extreme case, one might say that we are talking of a re-negotiation of the

problem formulation that initiated the project. It is a sort of retrograde problem

definition: what is the result a solution to?

Christensen and Kreiner do not focus much on drawing the individual participant’s

learning into perspective, but do acknowledge that many projects create a

framework for acquisition of experience in order to motivate participants.

However, it seems apparent that dynamic project participation demands well-

developed competencies and a conscious attitude to one’s own role and function

throughout the different phases of the project.

In the framework of a learning perspective, it also seems ineffective that C & K do

not proposition a more massive evaluation of the work process. It seems like the

environment is primarily ascribed significance in determining the outcome of the 7 Søren Christensen & Kristian Kreiner, ”Projektledelse i Løstkoblede Systemer”, s.73–s.81,

Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag 2001.

project, though it is not hard to imagine how poorly a start one might get off to if

one does not act according to the conditions imposed by the context of the

project.

There is a fundamental assumption at the KaosPilots that the students acquire

skills on both the individual level and team level in order to perform the dynamic

project form. In this context it now seems especially relevant to amalgamate the

dynamic project form with a organisational learning perspective.8 In the same

way one might argue for supplementing this with an educational-theory

perspective of individual learning in the context of project work.

8 8 Søren Christensen & Kristian Kreiner, ”Projektledelse i Løstkoblede Systemer”, s.87-95,

Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag 2001.