IJCM Vol 23 Issue 8

8/12/2019 IJCM Vol 23 Issue 8

1/83

1. Editorial BoardPage CO2

2. Project Management Research Conferences 2006Pages 573-574J. Rodney Turner

3. A memetic paradigm of project managementPages 575-583Stephen Jonathan Whitty

4. Understanding internally generated risks in projectsPages 584-590Richard B. Barber

5. Intervening conditions on the management of project risk: Dealing withuncertainty in information technology projects

Pages 591-599E. Kutsch and M. Hall

6. Impact of soft logic on the probabilistic duration of construction projectsPages 600-610Wei-Chih Wang

7. An evaluation of partnership development in the construction industryPages 611-621R. Beach, M. Webster and K.M. Campbell

8. Client versus contractor perspectives on project success criteriaPages 622-629David James Bryde and Lynne Robinson

9. Contract strategy for design management in the design and build systemPages 630-639Edwin H.W. Chan and Ann T.W. Yu

10. The role of project management in university computing resourcedepartments

Pages 640-649David Wierschem and Chuck Johnston

International Journal of Project Management Copyright © 2006 Elsevier Ltd and the International Project Management Association (IPMA). All rights reserved

Volume 23, Issue 8, Pages 573-650 (November 2005)


2/83

11. Index to Volume 23Pages I-III


3/83


4/83

Editorial

Project Management Research Conferences 2006

For the last 18 months I have been a member of a re-search network, called Rethinking Project Management,sponsored by the UK Government through the Engineer-ing and Physical Sciences Research Council, and managedby the University of Manchester. One of the premises of the network has been that the current knowledge base of

Project Management, as reected in the guidelines to thebodies of knowledge or project management competenceproduced by professional associations in Europe, Australiaand North America, does not fully describe project man-agement as it applies to all projects, particularly complexprojects. Thus the knowledge of project management needsto be enhanced and extended, and that is the job of the aca-demic community.

One of the questions that has occupied the network iswhether project management is a profession. The answerseems to be at best, ‘‘not yet’’. Before it can become aprofession it needs to be recognized as a proper academicdiscipline, and we have not yet properly achieved that.There are several things blocking its recognition as aproper academic discipline. One is that it is not clearwhere in the academic community it sits, in the manage-ment faculty, engineering faculty, faculty of the built envi-ronment or computer sciences faculty. In fact rather thanbeing recognized as an academic discipline in its ownright, in which case it would probably sit in the manage-ment faculty, it remains a service subject to all the otherfaculties and therefore does not achieve proper recogni-tion. However, that is changing. At a break-out sessionat the last meeting of the research network, all but oneof the academics in that syndicate were in the manage-

ment faculty. We felt that ten years ago it would havebeen the other way around, (although two of us in theroom, Ralph Levene and I were in management facultiesten years ago).

Another reason why project management cannot yetachieve the status of a profession, and which is blockingits recognition as an academic discipline in its own right,is that there is no sound theory of project management.It is empirical knowledge rather than theoretical knowl-edge. This has been a strong theme of the network. WhileI agree with it, I think that some members of the network

were more dismissive of the theory of project managementthan I would be. I believe that in my books I have tried toformulate a theory as a basis of what I write. For instancein two books [1,2], I devote the rst chapter in each case tooutlining the theoretical basis of what follows. It may onlybe an embryonic theory, but I think it exists and it is sound

(as far as it goes). To answer the critics, it was my plan nextyear in my editorials to outline a theory of ProjectManagement.

Another thing that in the past has blocked project man-agement s recognition as an academic discipline is the lackof academic research conferences. Most of the conferencesrun by the professional institutions (particularly the ProjectManagement Institute and the International Project Man-agement Association) have traditionally been aimed atpractitioners. However, that too is now changing, and dur-ing 2006 there will be three major research conferenceseither devoted to Project Management or with ProjectManagement as a signicant stream. These are as follows:

1. The European Academy of Management Conference,EurAM, to be held in Oslo on 17–20 May 2006, willhave a track devoted to Project Management. EurAMis an annual conference, now in about its sixth year.There are several different tracks each year, and ProjectManagement is the only track that has been held everyyear. We are very proud of this. It places project man-agement at the centre of a major research conferencein management. People interested in submitting papersto the project management track can do so up until Jan-uary 2006. For information go to the EurAM web site,

www.euram2006.no .2. The International Research Network on Organizing byProjects, IRNOP, will hold its seventh conference inXi an, China in October 2006. The IRNOP conferenceis held every second year. The rst was held in Swedenin 1994, and subsequent ones have been held in France,Canada, Sydney, The Netherlands, and Finland. Thisis therefore the oldest research conference in ProjectManagement. The plan is to hold the eighth IRNOPconference in 2007 and from then on hold it in oddnumbered years. People wanting to submit a paper to

0263-7863/$ - see front matter 2005 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.10.001

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpromanInternational Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 573–574

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF

PROJECTMANAGEMENT

http://www.euram2006.no/http://www.euram2006.no/


5/83

IRNOP VII can send an abstract up until 15th Decem-ber 2005. For information go to the IRNOP web site,www.irnop.org .

3. The Project Management Institute now also holds abiennial research conference. The fourth will be held inMontreal in 2006. Previous ones have been held in Paris,

Seattle and London. Unfortunately, by the time this edi-torial appears the date for submitting papers will havepassed, but anybody interested in the conference cannd information at PMI s web page, www.pmi.org .

So Project Management as an academic discipline is com-ing of age with three major research conferences in 2006.

A nal thing that has blocked the recognition of ProjectManagement as a true academic discipline is the recogni-tion afforded to the research journals. Unfortunately, theInternational Journal of Project Management, IJPM, doesnot appear in the Social Science Citation Index, SSCI.Thompson, who maintain SSCI, maintain it just becausethe data is useful for various purposes, but unfortunatelyit has achieved a signicance in the academic communityunintended by the owners. IJPM did appear in SSCI inthe 1980s and early 1990s, but was taken out before I be-came editor. I have reapplied for inclusion, but was toldThompson did not need the data. IJPM does appear in

two competing citation indices, Scopus and Emerald, andachieves a very high impact factor, approaching 2, almostfour times the norm for management journals. So the pa-pers published in IJPM are very highly regarded by the aca-demic community. But unfortunately IJPM may notachieve the full recognition is deserves until it appears in

SSCI, and that may continue to damage project manage-ment as an academic discipline, because academics in Pro- ject Management may not achieve recognition forpromotion by publishing in the leading journal in theireld. (Fortunately many universities do accept the recogni-tion afforded by Scopus and Emerald.)

References

[1] Turner JR. The handbook of project based management. 2nd ed.London: McGraw-Hill; 1999.

[2] Turner JR. The management large projects and programmes for webdelivery. Aldershot: Gower; 2004.

J. Rodney TurnerGraduate School of Management

Lille, FranceE-mail address: [email protected]

574 Editorial / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 573–574

http://www.irnop.org/http://www.pmi.org/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.pmi.org/http://www.irnop.org/


6/83

A memetic paradigm of project management

Stephen Jonathan Whitty *

School of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

Received 10 September 2004; received in revised form 8 March 2005; accepted 10 June 2005

Abstract

This paper aims to fuel the discussion on examining project management research from different perspectives. A new memeticapproach to project management is presented that promotes a new way to examine the discipline of project management. Projectmanagement is claimed to be a memeplex with the language and stories of its scholars and practitioners at its core; shaping andrestricting human behaviour, and creating impoverished mental models of project management. The paper suggests that a newmemetic approach to project management will help lift restrictions imposed by the traditional research approach, and enrich ourmental maps of project management to serve us better.

2005 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Memetics; Project management research

1. Introduction

Despite decades of research and experience, projectmanagement (PM) still fails to live up to the expectationsof stakeholders as they continue to be disappointed byproject results [1–3]. Söderland [4] and others [5,6] arguethat a possible cause for poor project results is that schol-arsandpractitioners still donotreallyunderstandthe nat-ure of projects, and that too much research effort has beendirected towards clarifying the reasons for project successand failure, while downplaying research on why projectsexist andbehave as they do. Moreover, Söderland [4]sug-gests that to highlight the weaknesses of current PM re-

search we should be pursuing questions such as; Whydo project organisations exist, why do they differ, andhow do they behave? What is the function of, or valueadded by, thePM unit? However, these questions still pre-suppose that we understand what a project is, and whatthe management of one means.

I believe we will not nd answers to these questions orfurther our understanding of projects and their manage-ment by using our current research approach to PM[7,8]. I suggest a new ‘‘memetic’’ approach is required.One that requires us to consider that most of what wecall a project and what it is to manage one is an illusion;a human construct about a collection of feelings, expec-tations [9], and sensations, cleverly conjured up, fash-ioned, and conveniently labelled by the human brain.Moreover, it requires us to consider that our reasonsfor using projects and PM are not consciously drivento maximise prot. Scholars and practitioners will berequired to consider PM as naturally occurring, self-

serving, evolving and designing organisations for itsown purpose. Abandoning our current PM knowledgewill not be required; however a memetic approach willcompel us to examine it, redirecting our attention to pre-viously hidden aspects of PM enquiry. Rather than pos-ing questions such as ‘‘why do project organisationsexist,’’ we can ask, ‘‘what are we able to see, think, ortalk about if we conceive PM in a memetic way?’’

Throughout this paper I refer to a traditionalapproach to PM research. Traditional meaning the

0263-7863/$30.00 2005 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.06.005

*

Tel.: +61 7 3365 9797; fax: +61 7 3365 4999.E-mail address: [email protected] .URL: http://www.itee.uq.edu.au/~jonw .

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 575–583


PROJECTMANAGEMENT

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.itee.uq.edu.au/~jonwhttp://www.itee.uq.edu.au/~jonwmailto:[email protected]


7/83

current approach, with underlying mental modelswhich have been extended with many variations on atheme to inform management theory [10]. These tradi-tional models regard organisations as human con-structs. An underlying assumption of a traditionalapproach to PM research assumes that an organisationis an entity in its own right, with structures and sys-tems that can be changed for the purpose of organisa-tional improvement.

In this paper I will put forward an argument for a

change from the traditional to a memetic approach toPM research. Such an approach will make an impacton many aspects of PM, such as; how it evolves, howit is studied and practiced, the role of the project man-ager, the project team and the profession. Moreover, itwill make an impact on our view of the PM body of knowledge (BoK) and the role of project organisations.Table 1 summarises aspects of PM that are discussed indetail in this paper, highlighting the traditional vs.memetic approach to PM, and emphasising the impactof a new memetic paradigm.

2. Traditional vs. memetic approach

There is a major difference between the traditionalapproach and a memetic approach to PM researchwhich can be illustrated by describing the shift in scien-tic thinking about the theory of evolution during themid-20th century.

Traditionally, biological evolution considered evolu-tion occurring for the good of the species. Random ge-netic changes produce mutations in offspring, enablinga species to innovate and adapt to a changing environ-ment, and natural selection eliminates unt organisms

from the landscape as a result of competing for niteresources.

Theories of cultural evolution have drawn strong par-allels between biological evolution and the evolution of civilization, economy, and culture [10–12]. A traditionalapproach to cultural and economic evolution considersevolution occurring for the good of the organisation(species). Individuals (organisms) and organisations(species) are considered to compete against each otherfor nite resources and adapting to the economic land-

scape [12,13]. Fullmer [13] uses this traditional approachwhen arguing that one organisational structure for suc-cessful adaptation is the use of teams and PM.

In the mid-20th century a new ‘‘selsh-gene’’approach to biological evolution began that considersevolution occurring for the good of the genes [14]. Inthis approach it is the genes which are successful, ornot, at replicating and getting passed on into the nextgeneration. All biological life therefore, with all its com-plexity and subtlety is driven by the replicating behav-iour of genes.

Dawkins [14] takes this point beyond biology to cul-tural life suggesting that ‘‘all life evolves by the differen-tial survival of replicating entities’’. Moreover, he andothers [15,16] argue that there are non-biological or cul-tural replicators – memes. Memes can be considered tobe recipes or instruction manuals for doing somethingcultural [15]; behaviours, words, or sounds that are cop-ied from person to person. A memetic approach to cul-tural and economic evolution considers evolutionoccurring for the good of the memes. All cultural lifetherefore, including PM, is driven by the replicatingbehaviour of memes.

To apply memetic theory to PM we must treat memesas replicators in their own right. Within the context of

Table 1Impact of memetic approach to aspects of project management

Aspects of PM Traditional approach Memetic approach Impact of memetic approach on PM

Evolution PM evolves for the good of theorganisation and individual

PM evolves for the good of the PMmemes

PM is self-serving. It does not serve theindividual or organisation

Study and practice PMBOK is a human construct,consciously designed, created andimplemented

PMBOK has evolved by memeticselection. PMBOK alters itsenvironment to increase the number of projects

PMBOK validity reduced

Project manager/Project team

Strategy to implementorganisational objectives

Actors created by PM memes Traditional role of project manager isquestioned. Team creative output is aproduct of memetic evolution

Profession PMI is a human construct,consciously designed, created andimplemented

PMI has evolved by memetic selectionto spread PM memes

The PMI is the way the PM memeplexspreads PM

Knowledge creation Knowledge is constructed by asocial system (scholars andpractitioners)

Knowledge processes (memes) constructsocial systems (scholars and practitioners)

A new way of questioning the bastions of PM knowledge

Project organisations Project organisations are humanconstructs, consciously designedand created

Project organisations are created by thereplicating behaviour of PM memes

Project organisations will prevail at theexpense of the individual

576 S.J. Whitty / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 575–583


8/83

PM, the evolution of ideas, concepts, theoretical models,methodologies and practices are all behaviours drivenby self-interested memes. This is the major differencethat separates a memetic approach to PM research frommore traditional theories and methodologies.

Traditionally, PM is considered to be a conscious ini-

tiative, a means for individuals or organisations to con-trol and adapt to their environment, and to make senseof the world in a reductionist way. Memetic theory sug-gests that PM behaviour is driven by our interpretationof reality; a reality largely created by the language weuse.

3. How we make sense of our world

The world is too complex for human beings to under-stand, so we do not operate directly or immediatelyupon it, but rather we create mental models or mapsof the world, and use these maps to guide our behaviour[17,18]. Moreover, humans use a number of representa-tional systems to build their mental maps; one of themost signicant is language [18].

3.1. Mental models

Senge [17] suggests that these ‘‘tacit mental modelsexist below the level of awareness as images, assump-tions, and stories which we carry in our minds of our-selves, other people, institutions, and every aspect of the world.’’ Like an optical lens subtly distorting our vi-

sion, our mental maps determine what we see; and all of these mental maps are awed in some way. Individualstherefore, including practitioners and academics, haveincomplete or erroneous mental maps of PM. Moreover,these mental maps are created by the culture they areimmersed in, and the language they use.

3.2. Language use

Words, as inuential as they may be, are really onlyimperfect labels for our human experiences. Humansare able to use social linguistics to categorise, organise,and lter their experience. Kofman [19] suggests ‘‘thatlanguage is a medium through which we create newunderstandings and new realities, as we begin to talkabout them. While a speaker creates language, languageis also creating the speaker. In fact, we do not talk aboutwhat we see; we see only what we can talk about’’. Ourlanguage therefore shapes the landscape of our mentalmaps; and our mental maps lter our experience andsubsequently shape our language use.

Bandler [18] illustrates an example of this by describ-ing how the human mind converts a sensation into athing. ‘‘In the ordinary sentence: The book is blue . Blueis the name that we, as native speakers of English, have

learned to use to describe our experience of a certainportion of the continuum of visible light. Misled bythe structure of our language, we come to assume thatblue is a property of the object that we refer to as bookrather than being the name which we have given oursensation.’’

I suggest the human brain has similarly misled uswith PM. The language of the Project ManagementInstitute (PMI ) through its Guide to the Project Man-agement Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide) [20]denes a project in terms of its distinctive characteristics – ‘‘a project is a temporary endeavour undertaken tocreate a unique product or service’’. In this context, tem-porary means a limited period of time, and uniquemeans that the product or service is different in somedistinguishing way from others. In this denition a project is described as a collection of characteristic or attri-butes. However, neither the notion of a limited timeperiod, nor uniqueness is a noun. The attributes of aproject are all highly subjective. Projects are simply asynthesis of human sensation and expectations abouthow multiple resources are to be used. Viewing a projectthis way enlightens us to the fact that neither manager,team members, nor stakeholders are driving the project;the project is driving them.

4. Impact on study and practice of project management

As scholars, it is crucial that we recognise andacknowledge how the language used by PM scholars

and practitioners is constructing our mental model of projects and PM [21], restricting what we observe bythe language they employ. In an implicit manner, theknowledge of the PM community has already set acourse for our line of enquiry, subtly directing our atten-tion to concepts and practices deemed critical. New dis-coveries made in traditional PM research are thereforedescribed in terms of, and with reference to, our gener-ally accepted professional guide, such as the PMBOKGuide. Memetically, the PMBOK Guide is consideredto be a vehicle for recording and propagating a recipefor creating projects. It and other popular PM books[22–25] structured around the PMBOK , are reposito-ries for memes in the form of ideas, methodologies,and stories that have survived memetic selection, andare copied from one person to another in the long his-tory of human attempts to understand and organisethe world. The stories we construct to make sense of our experience, to give meaning to our actions andthoughts, are stories we have learned to construct [26].These learnt PM stories, I suggest, are determined bythe memes of PM scholars and practitioners. One storyis that of the project plan, which traditionally serves theproject manager as a map of the route from project startto nish [22]. However, memetics provides us with an

S.J. Whitty / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 575–583 577


9/83

alternative view of the project plan, exposing it as a lan-guage lter, limiting the project manager s experienceand restricting their description of the project and itsprogress to generally accepted PM terms in an existen-tial manner.

Traditionally the PMBOK is considered to be con-

sciously designed, created and implemented. Memeti-cally it has evolved by memetic selection. Thispresupposes no design, only the appearance of it. More-over, the PMBOK through its application by practitio-ners is altering its environment to secure its ownsurvival. It does this by inuencing how practitionersare taught, and how organisations are constructed soas to increase the number of projects created. Havingexposed the PMBOK as self-serving its validity as auseful tool to individual practitioners must be ques-tioned. The language (memes) of the PMBOK andthe behaviour it drives must be examined by a memeticapproach. Doing so, we will enrich our mental model of the discipline of PM, and make visible that which hadpreviously been outside of our collective awareness.

5. Impact on views of project managers and project teams

Kloppenborg and Opfer [27] highlight how PM isused in all aspects and areas of commerce and industry,and predict this trend is likely to continue. They suggest‘‘this increase is a genuine focus by executive manage-ment to improve their chances for success in both re-turn-on-investment and in the quick and economic

development and release of new products and servicesto the marketplace’’. Moreover, they suggest that therole of the project manager will be vital to the imple-mentation of corporate strategies and objectives.

Traditionally, the role of project manager is someonewho consciously negotiates with project stakeholders,keeps the peace among team members, and tries to keepcalm while all around them is chaos; while budgets andGantt charts are not the main parts of the role [22].Whilst the purpose of the project manager is to normal-ise conict to a level where it is socially approved, theupwardly mobile project manager needs crisis to bemanaged and unique and special events to display apresence [28].

Memetically, the role of project manager is a product(actor) of all the memes that have successfully enteredthe adaptive organisation [13] memeplex (a term usedby Speel [29] for groups of memes that replicate betteras a group). In this context the project manager s roleis that of a copying machine, copying memes such as;time is money [30], fail to plan is a plan to fail [31],the project life cycle [32], and Tuchman s [33] team-development sequence, and all this and more in a selectenvironment, in a vast evolutionary process driven bycompeting memes. A memetic approach would enable

the ‘‘project manager’’ meme to be examined and therole of project manager to be questioned. In the futurethe value of such a role might be greatly reduced if thememes that create the environment of conict requiredfor the role of project manager to exist were to be iden-tied and removed by tter memes.

Traditionally, effective teamwork is seen as a key suc-cess factor in deriving a competitive advantage on theorganisational landscape [13,34]. A team can be de-scribed as a social construct, a group of individualswho have come together for a denite purpose [35].When asked to talk about their project team projectmanagers inevitably talk about the skills and attributesof the individual members. The PMBOK Guide sup-ports this expression by presenting information as if the parts of a team are the sum total of its existence.However, we cannot grasp the functionality of the wholeby just looking at its parts [36]. Similarly, we cannotdescribe the effectiveness, character, and culture of aproject team by describing its individual members.There is no such thing as human nature independentof culture suggests Geertz [37].

Memetically, project teams are an effective means of replicating, evolving, and spreading PM memes. Therole of the project team is critical to the whole projectprocess. However, the team s creative role can no longerbe considered to be the sum of independent thinkers cre-ating new ideas and solutions. Rather the project team isa copying machine, part of a vast evolutionary process,driven by the competition between PM memes. Doesthis mean that the project team is somehow on auto-

matic pilot, a servant to the memes? I suggest not. A cre-ative role for the project team still exists. A deepmisunderstanding of Darwinian thinking is the idea thatwhenever a human phenomenon is given an evolution-ary explanation, whether it be genes or memes, we mustdeny that people think [15]. Thinking is crucial! PMmemes cannot be put through the test of memetic selec-tion on their own; they require their human hosts to runthe evolutionary algorithm – to think. Memes are toolsfor thinking, and they have to be used in order for themto generate behaviour [15]. Memetically, we can viewany creative output of a project team to be the resultof an evolutionary algorithm, where memes are commu-nicated, mutated, and undergo the process of memeticselection.

6. Project management memes: A holistic view

Dawkins [14] argues that knowledge actively pursuesgoals of its own. This view is called memetics, the ow of ideas (memes) from one mind to another. The OxfordEnglish Dictionary denes a meme as an element of culture that may be considered to be passed on bynon-genetic means, especially imitation. Memetics



10/83

presupposes that knowledge can be transmitted fromone subject to another, and thereby loses its dependenceon any single individual [38]. Instead of seeing knowl-edge as constructed by a social system, as social con-structivism would [39], memetics denes social systemsas constructed by knowledge processes.

To understand the meme paradigm or ‘‘meme view’’in a natural sense it is necessary to suspend our normalmodel of the world. For example, consider a song assomething that competes with other memes for accessto the human brain. Once whistled, the meme has suc-cessfully replicated and achieved its purpose. Memesof course are not conscious, so they do not constructstrategies to replicate, in the same way that genes arenot conscious. Biologists however, nd it useful to con-struct a metaphor that considers genes as active agentsstrategising to replicate themselves, but in reality, natu-ral selection preserves those genes that happen to ‘‘act asif’’ they are pursuing a strategy. The human mind, like itor not, is a host and breeding ground for memes [14–16].

7. A better approach: Project management memeplex

Conceptualising PM as a memeplex presents scholarsand practitioners with new ways of seeing and thinkingabout projects and their management, consequently pro-viding new contexts for action in which individuals andorganisations can express themselves and act. Previouslyhidden dimensions of PM can be exposed, and memesthat are true or useful can be isolated from those that

are false and misleading.One characteristic of a memeplex is that false memesget copied along with true memes, as memes do not needto be true to be successful [16]. A memetic approach willhighlight what in our current PM knowledge is based onfact, tradition, or authority. Moreover, it will enable usto discover the memes that are involved in creating PMbehaviour.

The PM memeplex has a legacy of memes from itsroots in construction and continues to absorb economicand nancial memes which posses great authority incapitalist societies. An example of this is the ‘‘bottomline’’ meme which is particularly dominant in manage-ment conversations. Moreover, organisational expertsuse memes such as; ‘‘assets-to-liabilities’’, ‘‘return-on-investment’’, ‘‘return-on-equity’’, ‘‘after-tax-prot’’.All of these are regarded as established means of deter-mining whether an organisation is t and healthy.Frame [40] suggests that for the eld of PM to evolveinto the mainstream of corporate management, newproject managers will have to be versed in both thenancial implications, and the ‘‘return-on-investment’’,of the project endeavour. I suggest that a memetic ap-proach to PM will uncover that a large amount of memes in the PM memeplex are today being generated

and replicated by University Business Schools. More-over, as we continue to dene organisational success inmonetary terms our education systems (tertiary and sec-ondary) seem more naturally an extension of corporatetraining [28]. Hewlett-Packard s Mission: Project Man-agement (MPM) is an example of this which uses a busi-

ness-based model to teach school teachers and studenttask scheduling, group roles and responsibilities, timeand project management [41]. Left unchecked, the ‘‘man-agerialist’’ memes will drown out non-managementperspectives and stories.

8. Impact on the project management profession

A memeplex characteristic of PM is evident in theformation and membership of PM institutes and their journal publications. PM is nding its own feet in theworld through its institutions, carefully dening itsboundaries and establishing its knowledge base [42].The Australian Institute of Project Management(AIPM) is a case in point. To be a member one needsto demonstrate at least ve years relevant experiencein PM (but not necessarily as a Project Manager) andhave a minimum standard of education, or have success-fully completed a PM course recognised or accredited bythe AIPM [43]. Either way, an AIPM member is almostswearing an oath to, or declaring a belief in, the accep-tance of PM knowledge as dened by its membership. Inreality, individual project managers and project organi-sation may come and go, but the memeplex called PM

continues to create our language and shape the land-scape of our individual and collective mental maps. Thisis an example of the PM memeplex altering its envi-ronment in a way that increases the chances of it beingreplicated. It does this by imbedding within itself instructions to pass it on [44], and by describing itself as indispensable to those who use it [45,46]. Moreover,the PM memeplex incorporates useful laws for businessconduct such as professional ethics [22,47,48] that bindits practitioners into its professional community andconsequently enhance their commitment to the profes-sion [49].

A memetic approach to PM uncovers the missions of institutions such as PMI and AIPM, which are tospread PM, shaping the behaviour of their membership,reconstruct organisations to facilitate this, and all thiswithout paying attention to the needs of its individualmembers.

9. Impact of memes on creating knowledge

A traditional evolutionary approach to knowledgebuilding in the context of a project environment is thatthe construction of knowledge is an ongoing process at



11/83

many different levels – biological, physiological, andsocial. It happens through a variation of existing piecesof knowledge and the selective retention of those whichare new, which somehow contribute to the survival of subjects in their given environment [50]. Any absolutismor permanence disappears in this approach however;

knowledge is still a passive tool developed by subjects(project managers or team members in the project con-text) to help them in their quest.

A memetic approach is very different. Memes areconsidered to use biological, physiological, and socialsystems to their own advantage as copying mechanisms,helping them replicate and spread. In this light, the PMcommunity, its body of knowledge, and even the role of a project manager and project team is a product con-structed by an ongoing evolution of independent frag-ments of knowledge competing for position anddominance.

As previously mentioned, memes entrench notions orbeliefs in the human mind even though they may be false[16]. False however is not the same as ‘‘bad’’ for the be-liever. Meredith s [51] popular teaching of PM still putsforward the notion of the project life cycle, howeverGersick [52,53] strongly suggests that projects do notreally evolve in this manner. This is a good example of the project life cycle meme at work, spreading eventhough it may be false. Traditionally, the project life cy-cle considers projects to be born, grow, wane, and die,rather like a living organism [22,25]. However, a meme-tic approach would show the project life cycle meme tobe a metaphor that illustrates how natural, organic, and

non-threatening the practice of PM is; leaving us feelingsafe, secure, and somehow familiar with the process, andopen-minded to receive more PM memes. Anothermeme which may be false is Tuckman s [33] ve-stageteam-development sequence, still struggling for ourattention since it has been proved to be an outdated orlimited representation of reality [52]. A memetic ap-proach gives us a new way of questioning the bastionsof our PM knowledge.

10. Impact on organisations

Our human ability to mull over endless possibilities,to deal with distractions and still keep multiple goalsand plans in mind, appears mostly to have grown outof a simple expansion in brain size [54]. Blackmore[16] suggests that our enormous human brain size hasbeen created by memes, a product of genetic and meme-tic evolution. Projects and PM are therefore naturaloccurrences, and appear more and more in organisa-tions not because of conscious boardroom decisionsbut because PM is an ancient product of our evolved hu-man predisposition. PM is literally in our human andcultural nature. So¨derland [4] asks ‘‘why do project

organisations exist?’’ Memetically, organisations haveno choice in the matter if they are to roam around onthe economic landscape of the future.

Fulmer s [13] research illustrates that a growing num-ber of organisations are recognising that they are ven-turing into new, unfamiliar territory, and need to

enrich their mental maps of the business landscape. Hesuggests that these adaptive organisations successfullyuse teams and PM as one structure to gain competitiveadvantage. An alternative memetic approach is thatPM is shaping organisations for its own purpose, asmemes about how to increase prots by delivering projects successfully begin to ood the organisationalmeme-pool. Project organisations may eventually domi-nate the economic landscape at the cost of creatinghighly unstable temporary work environments for indi-viduals. We need to be aware of the memes in the organ-isational meme-pool and promote those that arebenecial to individuals.

11. New directions and questions for future research

Memetics allows us to describe how all human cul-tural behaviour, including PM, is driven by the samereplicating process that drives the biological world. Isuggest a new ‘‘memetic’’ research direction in the disci-pline of PM with the purpose to study, describe, andexplain the memetic phenomena of PM in society, howit develops, spreads, and drives human behaviour.

Traditional PM research directions need not be aban-

doned, rather examined in a new way from a memeticperspective. Pinto [55] suggests in his review of the cur-rent state of PM thinking that benchmarking and PMBoK unication are two principle directions in whichtraditional research has been evolving.

11.1. Benchmarking

Benchmarking refers to the search for best practice toallow industry to gain the advantage of a shorter learn-ing time. Memetic research could identify and isolate the‘‘best practice’’ memes in the PM memeplex and memet-ically engineer them to be easily absorbed into anyorganisational structure. All organisations would thenbe able to gain the advantage of a shorter learning time.

11.2. PM BoK unication

Morris [56] illustrates the need for unication of all BoK s if the acceptance of PM among globalorganisations is to grow. A memetic approach views thisunication as a ‘‘survival of the ttest’’ competitionbetween PM memes, each one altering their environ-ment to increase their chances of being replicated.Examples of this would be opening institutional



12/83

membership to anyone willing to pay the subscription;accrediting PM courses, text books, and professionalcertication; conferences; online resources; publishing journals, and even sponsoring a research study to inves-tigate the challenges of selling PM to senior executives[44].

11.3. Questions for future research

I envisage a memetic paradigm of PM opening up theeld of enquiry of PM. Future memetic research in thisdiscipline could, as a starting point, pursue the followtwo questions further.

11.4. Why do people individually and collectively believein project management?

Fulmer [13] considers PM to be one of the ingredientsof the glue that holds the social structure of an adaptiveorganisation together. Spectator sports are memes.Sport, like PM, provides individuals with a sense of identity; it provides a common bond and united senseof purpose. Why do so many believe in PM? My premiseis that PM appears to answer all sorts of human ques-tions in the organisational setting such as; why are wedoing this? Winch [57] suggests that a clear mission isessential for effective PM. However, he also points outthat missions are rarely truly clear as they are inevitablypoliticized and a result of complex negotiations andtrade-offs [58]. In this instance the PM ‘‘mission’’ or‘‘vision’’ meme creates a feeling of purpose, but it is

really only another story we learn to tell about the project. Further memetic research may uncover why weneed to tell such stories.

11.5. Why does project management spread?

Traditionally, PM knowledge may pass from personto person by explicit means such as books, the internet,narratives, or academics teaching in university pro-grammes. All these products and services are createdby people to make our business lives easier and ourorganisations more productive. In a somewhat coun-ter-intuitive way Blackmore [16] suggests that memeticselection created them. A memetic answer is that allPM books, websites, courses, software, and professionalinstitutions have evolved as a result of competitionbetween memes.

Too much research in the reasons for project successandfailurehasbeen blamed forpoor project performance[4–6]. Evaluating project performance has many dimen-sions [59,60], however a list ofwhy projects fail can be eas-ily found [2,3,61]. Ask a group of PM practitioners ‘‘whydo projects fail?’’ and a consensus quickly develops. Suchlists appear in the rst chapters of many mainstream PMbooks and course notes. The ‘‘why do projects fail’’ meme

is strong. Some of the content of such a list may be sup-ported by empirical evidence, some may be a story wehave learnt to tell. A memetic approach to PM is as inter-ested inthe ideaof sucha listandwhy itgets copied, asit isthe content of the list that generates behaviour. There isnodoubt that the actual contentsof the list will suffer from

errors as it gets copied across different media, in differentcontext, over time. However, the meme ‘‘why do projectsfail’’ continues to spread. The meme ‘‘why do projectssucceed’’ would be more powerful at creating positiveand constructive behaviour for individuals and organisa-tions,but the meme‘‘why doprojectsfail’’ wins the meme-tic selection race. I suggest it wins by praying on our fears.Fear of uncertainty and of making the wrong decisions,fear of criticism or rejection for not conforming; or fearof failure and of appearing unprofessional [62]. Basedon evolutionarypsychology [63], Brodie [64]suggests thatmemes spreadfasterwhen they appeal to fundamental hu-man instincts such as danger, food, and sex. Moreover,hesuggests we have ‘‘buttons’’ around these subjects. Per-haps a memetic approach to PM research will show thatPM spread because it presses our danger buttons.

12. Concluding remarks

This paper has called on scholars and practising pro-fessionals of the discipline of PM to be aware of themental models they use when conducting research orpractising PM. I have put forward the case that the cur-rent traditional approach to PM research is distortingthe reality of projects, and shifting our focus away fromthe important aspects of projects, their management,and how PM inuences us individually and collectively.

I suggest that a memetic paradigm of PM be consid-ered when indulging in this eld of enquiry, and that anew memetic approach is initiated with the purpose of studying, describing, and explaining the phenomena of the PM memeplex and its impact on society.

My purpose for drawing attention to the PM meme-plex is not simply to justify it, but to alert us to it. Notthat we will be able to overcome it, as I do not believewe are able to step out of the evolutionary process and

take it over. Rather that we should be aware of the illu-sions the PM memes create, try to identify those thatmore closely describe reality, and observe or create envi-ronments where memes other than those in the PMmemeplex can evolve.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the anonymous referees fortheir valuable and constructive comments on previousversions of this paper.



13/83


14/83

[50] West MA, Smith KG, Tjosvold D. Past, present, and futureperspectives on organizational cooperation. In: West MA, Tjosv-old D, Smith KG, editors. International handbook of organiza-tional teamwork and cooperative working. New York: Wiley;2003 [section vi].

[51] Meredith J, Mantel S. Project management: a managerialapproach. 3rd ed. New York: Wiley; 1995.

[52] Gersick C. Time and transition in work teams: Towards a newmodel of group development. Acad Manage J 1988;31:9–41.

[53] Gersick C. Marking time: predictable transitions in task groups.Acad Manage J 1989;32(2):274–309.

[54] Greeneld SA. Brain story: Unlocking our inner world of emotions, memories, ideas and desires. Dorling Kindersley Pub-lishing; 2001.

[55] Pinto JK. Project management 2002. Res Technol Manage2002;45(2):22–37.

[56] Morris PWG. Updating the project management bodies of knowledge. Project Manage J 2001;32(2):21–30.

[57] Winch GM. The management of projects as a generic businessprocess. In: Lundin RA, Hartman FT, editors. Projects as BusinessConstituents & Guiding Motives. UK: Kluwer; 2000. p. 117–30.

[58] Winch GM. Managing construction projects: An informationprocessing approach. Oxford: Blackwell; 2002.

[59] Kendra K, Taplin LJ. Project success: A cultural framework.Project Manage J 2004;35(1):30–45.

[60] Pinto JK, Slevin DP. Project success: Denitions and measure-ment techniques. Project Manage J 1988;19(1):67–72.

[61] Matta NE, Ashkenas RN. Why good projects fail. Harvard BusinRev 2003;81(9):109–14.

[62] Elliot AJ, Reis HT. Attachment and exploration in adulthood. JPersonal Social Psychol 2003;85(2):317–31.

[63] Barkow JH, Cosmides L, Tooby J, editors. The adapted mind:Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. NewYork: Oxford University Press; 1992.

[64] Brodie R. Virus of the mind: The new science of the meme.Seattle: Integral Press; 1996.



15/83

Understanding internally generated risks in projects

Richard B. Barber *

School of Aerospace Civil and Mechanical Engineering, University College, University of New South Wales, Canberra, ACT, 2600, Australia

Received 2 November 2004; received in revised form 1 February 2005; accepted 17 May 2005

Abstract

This paper identies a class of risk that is common, important and yet poorly managed in projects. Internally generated risks arisewithin a project management team or its host organisation, from their management systems, culture and decisions. Even when aproject applies recognised risk management processes, and seems to be managing its risks well, research demonstrates that internallygenerated risks are a different matter altogether. This calls into question how such risks can be managed, and whether current riskmanagement practices need to be changed.


Keywords: Risk; Systems approach; Health checks; Maturity; Implementation

1. Introduction

When a project team has fewer staff than it needs tooperate effectively, struggles to deal with bureaucraticnancial constraints, or is not supported by higher man-agement, the project is likely to be less successful andmay even fail. These are sources of risk to the project,but they cannot be blamed on the external world, noron the nature of the task. They arise from how the project and its host organisation are set up and operate.They are internally generated risks (IGR).

2. Internally generated risks

In seeking to understand internally generated risks,we need rst to know what we mean by the word risk .Denitions vary widely, but risk is most commonly de-ned in terms of uncertainty – such as ‘‘ the chance of something happening that will have an impact on objec-

tives’’ [8]. This is a narrow use of the word, useful whenwe are concerned with the risk of something happening .When we talk about the greatest risk or we say that wehave a signicant risk , we mean more than its probabil-ity – we are also considering the nature of the possibleimpact. Applying that broader meaning in the contextof projects, the denition of risk used in this paper is:

A risk is a threat to project success, where the nal impactupon project success is not certain.

Provided that there is some uncertainty in whetherthe threat will eventuate, some uncertainty in the natureof the possible impact on the project, or both, then a riskexists. Given this, we can dene internally generated

risks (IGR):Internally generated risks are those risks that have theirorigin within the project organisation or its host, arising from their rules, policies, processes, structures, actions,decisions, behaviours or cultures.

For example, if a project task is assigned to a projectmanager who lacks appropriate experience or skills, thelikelihood of project success will be reduced. The deci-sion to assign an inexperienced manager creates risk


*

Present address: 20 Gardonia Place, Albany Creek, Queensland4035, Australia. Tel.: +61 7 3325 4110; fax: +61 2 4959 9465.

E-mail address: [email protected] .




PROJECTMANAGEMENT

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


16/83

for the project and since that decision was taken withinthe host organisation, the risk is by denition an IGR.Some risks may appear to be internally generated butin fact are inherent to the nature of the project. Forexample, creating a breakthrough new technology car-ries a risk of failure simply because it is pushing theboundaries of what is possible. That risk would applyto any project team, in any organisation, that was tryingto do the same work. It is inherent in the nature of thework and does not arise from the rules, policies, pro-cesses, structures, actions, decisions, behaviours or cul-tures of the project organisation or its host.

Fig. 1 illustrates a total possible set of risks, includingIGR [3]. A risk cannot be both externally generated andinternally generated – they are mutually exclusive cate-gories. Similarly, a risk also cannot be both inherentand internally generated.

Internally generated risks may take many forms, butfrom the denition it seems likely that many will arisefrom or involve human behaviour. Even when the directsource of an IGR seems to lie in the operation of a pro-cess or from a structure, people are likely to be involvedto some extent because it is people who design, own andoperate structures and processes. If human behaviour isoften involved, we might also expect that many IGRswill be difficult to quantify in terms of probability andimpact. Human behaviour involves hidden factors suchas mental models, beliefs and values that have to be in-ferred from behaviour. They can only ever be partiallyunderstood by outside observers. This means that pre-

dicting human actions, decisions or other behaviour isproblematic, making estimates of risk where humansare involved, subjective and unreliable [9].

3. The research

There is a large body of research into risk in projects,and a good deal of that research includes dealing withrisks where human behaviour is involved. For example,McLucas [11] investigated projects that failed and foundthat many of the causes of failure were linked to humanbehaviour. Flyvberg et al. [13] discuss the same issues on

a larger scale, in his study of megaprojects. However,very little research is available that is focused specicallyon how and why risks arise internally, how they aremanaged, and whether this is signicant. Gilbreath [2]discusses such risks and their impacts, but does not ap-pear to base that discussion on empirical research. Con-

row [9] spends time categorising and considering risktypes, but does not identify those arising internally asa category in their own right.

A literature search indicates that there has been littleresearch on internally generated risk as a specic cate-gory of risk. For this reason, the research hypothesesto be tested were designed as a rst step in understand-ing IGRs. They were:

1. Hypothesis 1. Internally generated risks are common.2. Hypothesis 2. Internally generated risks are

signicant.3. Hypothesis 3. Internally generated risks are poorly

managed.4. Hypothesis 4. The amount of internally generated

risk in a project is related to how effective it is as aproject organisation (its maturity).

Research was conducted on nine projects – three projects in each of the three organisations in Australia andNew Zealand. Each project was large enough to requirethree or more permanent staff and each had a schedulelasting more than 12 months. Five involved civil engi-neering construction, one was a technology enhance-ment project, two were internal systems improvement

projects and one was a software development project.Clearly nine projects of four types cannot be claimedto fully represent all possible projects. However, theyare considered to be sufficiently diverse to be a reason-able basis for a general discussion about IGRs, andwhether further research is warranted.

Risk data were gathered using group workshops andone-on-one condential interviews, seeking to documentthe views of a range of project stakeholders on a rangeof issues related to a key question, which was: ‘‘ Whatmakes it hard for you to succeed in your role in your project, or for the project to succeed as a whole? ’’ This wasdeliberately an open question, allowing a wide rangeof responses. The use of workshops and condentialinterviews provided the opportunity for responses toarise in different ways, including the freedom toacknowledge issues that were too sensitive to discussin the open forum.

The data gathered were examined in detail, everyidentied risk was cataloged, and an initial assessmentof that risk carried out against the denition of IGR.Risks that were provisionally identied as IGRs werethen mapped in detail using a risk mapping techniquedeveloped from the concept mapping work of Novak[15], McLucas [11] and Callison [12], and assessed

The Total Set ofRisks to Success

Inherentand

ExternallyGenerated

Risks

InternallyGenerated

Risks

Fig. 1. Distinction between internally generated, inherent, and exter-nally generated risks.

R.B. Barber / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 584–590 585


17/83


18/83


19/83

range 1–5, where 5 represents a highly mature and effec-tive project management organisation. These resultswere then averaged, to provide a single maturity ratingfor each project. Both maturity and total IGR areshown in Fig. 2 .

To test for correlation, a non-parametric test usingthe rank correlation coefficient (Spearman rank) andthe t-distribution for small samples was used, to exam-ine the null hypothesis that there is no correlationbetween the two sets of data. The rank correlation coef-cient was calculated as 0.55, indicating a possiblenegative correlation. The signicance of the correlationwas assessed by calculating the ‘‘ t’’ value. This indicatedthat the null hypothesis can be rejected at a 80% con-dence level, but cannot be rejected at 90%. That is, thereis some reason to believe that in projects there is a neg-ative correlation between total IGR and maturity. How-ever, condence is not as high as we would like, and thisshould be taken as an indication only.

4. Interpretation of results

Although the nine projects are a small sample, thedata indicate strongly that internally generated risksare common, signicant and poorly managed. Thisshould be of concern, since projects are pervasive insociety today [13].

There are many reasons why IGRs may not be man-aged well. The rst is that risks involving people tend tobe sensitive to talk about and difficult to resolve. Forexample, if a manager is not good at his job or micro-manages subordinates, this will create risk to the organi-sation s success [7]. From experience, we also know thatin such cases it is likely that people will simply put up

with the problems created, rather than face the sensitivetask of seeking management action. It is even less likelythat such risks will be openly documented in formal riskmanagement systems. To do so, would be to cause af-front not only to the manager in question, but also totheir manager – who is accountable to identify and re-

solve such performance issues.Risks can be sensitive for other reasons. If a project isunder-resourced, staff are being overworked or an inter-nal process is ineffective then risks will be created.Although not directly about people, such sources of riskare often linked to a decision or policy that is ‘‘owned’’by someone – the person who approved the project de-spite a lack of resources, the person who is demandingmore work than is possible, or the owner of the ineffec-tive process or rule. These internally generated sourcesof risk may be known and discussed, but in many organ-isations they are unlikely to be documented in a riskregister. To do so might be seen as insensitive or provoc-ative, or simply as politically inappropriate.

Internal risks are also often seen as a fait accompli – such as when a project manager is told to ‘‘just do it’’despite having inadequate resources to do the workproperly. If there is no real possibility of the problembeing resolved, then there is little incentive to documentit as a risk. Reporting such risks may also be seen asbeing provocative or recalcitrant – as making a politicalpoint at the cost of the manager involved.

Finally, internally generated risks are often intangi-ble, and therefore not easily quantied. They do notlend themselves to being managed using risk processes

that rely upon quantifying and classifying risks. Manag-ers may also feel uncomfortable trying to describe, as-sess and classify risks that are about humanrelationships, culture or behaviour. It may also be seenas a waste of time to bother documenting issues thatare intangible or that are thought unlikely to be man-aged. Ultimately, these issues mean that internally gen-erated risks are less likely to be managed properly.

5. The implications for managers

The rst implication for managers is that they shouldbe concerning themselves more with the management of internally generated risks. This is reinforced by the re-search of McLucas, who showed that the lack of under-standing and hence lack of effective management of suchrisks is a common feature of avoidable disasters [11]. Aplausible implication not tested here, is that poor man-agement of IGRs is a contributing factor to avoidabledisasters in projects.

A second issue for managers is how to investigate andtreat IGRs. For the research, a new risk mapping tech-nique was developed in order to be able to deal with thecomplexity of the risks involved. It was also possible to

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Level of IGR

Maturity Rating

Project Number (arranged in increasing level of IGR)

R a

t i n g o r

L e v e

l

6 9 7 8 2 5 3 4 1

Fig. 2. Project management maturity related to total internallygenerated risk.

588 R.B. Barber / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 584–590


20/83

conduct condential interviews to gather data thatotherwise may not have been forthcoming. A managermay have neither the necessary tools and skills, northe opportunity, to investigate IGRs effectively.

The maturity survey results were not strongly conclu-sive, but did provide some support for the intuitively

obvious link between how well an organisation is setup (its maturity) and the amount of internally generatedrisk it faces. If this inverse relationship is correct, work-ing to remove the sources of internally generated riskalso means working to increase project managementmaturity. This is an exciting prospect, since it offers away of using risk analysis to support the developmentof organisational capability, without the current relianceon benchmarking [14]. Since it is inherently context sen-sitive, the risk analysis of internally generated risks maybe able to drive rapid organisational responses tochanges in the environment.

6. Implications for risk management as a discipline

The research outcomes raise questions for profes-sional risk managers and for those who manage stan-dards such as AS/NZS 4360. The nine projects all hadrisk registers and reported their risks through formalsystems. All had conducted some degree of risk assess-ment as part of their project management process. De-spite these measures being in place, the risk data arevery clear – the projects were experiencing signicantinternally generated risk, but those risks were poorly

managed. There were even cases where extreme riskshad not been identied or were not being managed.

When attempting to draw lessons from this it is nec-essary to differentiate between project teams being inef-fective in applying the risk management standard andother possible explanations. Although not tested in thisresearch, it seems unlikely that all nine projects were notcapable of applying the standard risk management ap-proach. The alternative is that the standard approachmay itself not be competent when dealing with typicalinternally generated risks. In turn, this would imply thatthose risk management standards should be re-examinedfrom rst principles in order to develop an approachthat is capable of dealing with all risks, including inter-nally generated risks.

7. Further research

The results are based upon simple hypotheses, andindicate that further study is appropriate. Possible areasof interest include:

Conrmation of the results for a wider range of project types.

Identication of the underlying reasons as to whyinternally generated risks tend not to be identiedor managed.

More complete testing of the relationship betweenproject management maturity and the presence of internally generated risk in projects.

Testing whether AS/NZS 4360 compliant risk man-agement approaches can deal effectively with inter-nally generated risks.

Testing whether project failures and disasters can belinked to the presence of internally generated risks.

8. Conclusions

Both the arguments and the research data support aconclusion that internally generated risks are importantin projects. Internally generated risks are common, sig-nicant and difficult to manage. Despite their impor-tance as a class of risk, the results imply that commonprocess-driven risk management approaches are inade-quate to deal with internally generated risks. This maybe because such risks are often complex and or sensitive,and hence can be difficult to document. They may alsobe difficult to quantify and to classify. The overall con-clusion is that internally generated risks are a key classof risk in their own right. They are important, andmay require special attention in order for them to bemanaged effectively.

The level of internally generated risk seems to relate

inversely to the level of project management maturityin the organisation. If this proposition is true, this pre-sents an opportunity to develop a new and exciting ap-proach to work on project management maturity. Theidentication, analysis and treatment of internally gen-erated risks would be used to drive organisational devel-opment [3].

The results of the research indicate that internallygenerated risks are a major challenge for project manag-ers and for risk professionals. The rst step in meetingthat challenge may prove to be the most difficult – tomove outside the current way of thinking about themanagement of risk, to make it possible to develop anew and more capable risk management approach.

References

[1] Gray CF, Larson EW. Project management. The managerialprocess. Singapore: McGraw-Hill; 2000.

[2] Gilbreath RD. Winning at project management: what works,what fails and why. New York: Wiley; 1986.

[3] Barber RB. The dynamics of internally generated risks inorganisations. In: Haslett T, Sarah R, editors. 9th ANZSYSconference proceedings, Sheraton Towers, Melbourne, Australia;2003.

R.B. Barber / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 584–590 589


21/83

[4] Checkland DI, Ireland LR. Project management strategic designand implementation. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2002.

[5] Project Management Institute. A guide to the project manage-ment body of knowledge. North Carolina: PMI Publishing; 2000.

[6] Barber RB, Burns M. A systems approach to risk management.In: Ledington P, Ledington J, editors. Proceedings of Australianand New Zealand systems conference 2002, Outrigger Resort,Mooloolaba, Australia; 2002.

[7] Jacques E. Requisite organisation. Arlington: Cason Hall & Co;1998.

[8] Standards Australia. Risk management AS/NZS 4360. Strath-eld: Standards Association of Australia; 2004.

[9] Conrow E. Effective risk management. Virginia: American Insti-tute of Aeronautics and Astronautics; 2003.

[10] Morris PWG. The management of projects. London: ThomasTelford; 1997.

[11] McLucas AC. Decision making: risk management, systemsthinking and situation awareness. Canberra: Argos Press;2003.

[12] Callison D. Concept mapping. School Library Media ActivitiesMonth 2001;17(10):30–2.

[13] Flyvbjerg B, Bruzelius N, Rothengatter W. Megaprojects andrisk. Cambridge: University Press; 2003.

[14] Barber E. Benchmarking the management of projects: a review of current thinking. Int J Proj Manag 2004;22(4):301–7.

[15] Novak JD. Learning, creating and using knowledge: conceptmaps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. Lon-don: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1998.

590 R.B. Barber / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 584–590


22/83

Intervening conditions on the management of project risk:Dealing with uncertainty in information technology projects

E. Kutsch a , M. Hall b, *a University of Surrey, School of Management, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XH, United Kingdom

b University of Bristol, Department of Management, Lewis Wing, Wills Memorial Building, Queens Road, Bristol BS8 1RJ, United Kingdom

Received 18 June 2004; received in revised form 27 July 2004; accepted 10 June 2005

Abstract

A review of the outcome of many information technology (IT) projects reveals that they fail to meet the pre-specied projectobjectives of scope, time and budget. Despite well-established project risk management processes, project managers perceive theirapplication as ineffective to manage risk. This failure may well be attributed to the inadequate application of those risk managementprocesses. The purpose of this research was to investigate how project managers responsible for the management of risk in IT projects actually managed risk and to relate this back to established project risk management processes. In undertaking this investiga-tion, we were seeking to understand the ways in which the project managers approaches and behaviours, when considering risk inIT projects, differed from what might be expected. Results show that because of environment-related and decision maker-relatedconditions, project managers tend to deny, avoid, ignore and delay dealing with risk, with the consequence of those actions havingan adverse inuence on their perceived effectiveness of risk management and the project outcomes. If project risk management, andits underlying processes are not to be discredited, the behaviour of project managers when confronted by uncertainty should be con-sidered and actions need to be taken to discourage project managers irrational actions.


Keywords: Risk management; Expected utility theory; Irrationality; Stakeholder behaviour

1. Introduction

Projects may be considered to have failed whenexpected scope, cost and time targets are not met,expected benets are not realised, or a stakeholder isdissatised with an aspect of the process or outcome.

In particular, IT projects (the provision of a serviceto implement systems and solutions, including a varietyof hardware and software products [1]) have a highrate of failure [2,3]. In one study, it was found that athird of all software projects were terminated beforecompletion while more than 50% of the projects costapproximately double the estimate [2]. According to

practitioners surveyed [2], IT project failure was mostcommonly attributed to lack of top managementinvolvement, a weak business case and inadequate riskmanagement. The highest ranked factor for projectfailure was risk management. The Project ManagementInstitute [4] dened risk management in a project envi-

ronment as the systematic process of identifying, anal-ysing, and responding to uncertainty as project-relatedevents or conditions which are not denitely knownwith the potential of adverse consequences on a projectobjective. Despite well established and accepted projectrisk management processes being available, includingPMI 2000, Prince 2 or PRAM, project managers com-monly perceive these as not effective for managing project uncertainties [2,5]. In the area of decision makingunder uncertainty, expected utility theory (EUT) has


* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 117 954 5699.E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Hall).




PROJECTMANAGEMENT

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


23/83

been the dominant normative and descriptive model.However, research has shown that conditions in projectrisk management deviate from the claims according tothis theorem. Kahneman and Tversky [6], for example,established in their research that the procedure of ‘‘framing’’ violates the EUT model. Elsewhere (e.g.

[8,9]) it was revealed that psychological factors playan important part in decision making under uncer-tainty but are not adequately captured by EUT.

Although much work has been done to date examin-ing the response of individuals to risk in various settings,such as in the oil industry or in education, little researchhas been carried out to ascertain the impact of interven-ing conditions on the management of risk by projectmanagers, their impact on the project outcome and theperceived effectiveness of risk management systemsand processes in the context of project management.The purpose of this research was to investigate howintervening conditions deviated from those one mightpresume under expected utility theory, how they inu-enced actions taken by project managers and how project managers perceptions of the effectiveness of project risk management ultimately contribute to project success and/or failure in the delivery of IT projects.The goal was to better understand how, under condi-tions of uncertainty, the application of risk managementtechniques by project managers might be improved.

2. Background

The dominant paradigm underlying project risk pro-cesses such as dened by the Project Management Insti-tute [4] and CCTA [9] is the expected utility theorem[10,5]. Expected utility is ‘‘a weighted average of the util-ities of all the possible outcomes that could ow from aparticular decision, where higher-probability outcomescount more than lower-probability outcomes in calculat-ing the average’’ [11, p. 21]; the utility of decision-making choices are weighted by their probabilities andoutcomes [7,12,11].

In order to understand this, one might consider thefollowing simplied example, as displayed in Fig. 1. Aproject manager facing risk in a project has the choiceto apply project risk management to mitigate projectrisk or may choose not to manage it.

According to Fig. 1, four scenarios may unfold:

1. project manager proactively executes risk mitigationactions and risks materialise;

2. project manager proactively executes risk mitigationactions and risks do not materialise;

3. project manager does not proactively executes riskmitigation actions and risks materialise;

4. project manager does not proactively executes riskmitigation actions and risks do not materialise.

The probability of avoiding risks in a project throughthe execution of risk response actions is P and withoutrisk actions Q, with P larger than Q and 1 Q larger

than 1 P . The utility if avoiding risks (relative to thecost of materialised risk) is A and the utility of no ac-tions (relative to the cost of those actions) is G whileA is assumed to be greater than G . The utility of scenario1 is the worst and, therefore, set at 0.

The utility of scenarios 1 and 3 depends on the cost of uncertainty materialising and adversely affecting theproject outcome. In contrast, the utility of scenarios 1and 2 depends on the cost to execute actions, the com-mitment of ‘‘scarce’’ project resources such as timeand money. Therefore, the decision by the project man-ager to take actions or not depends on the utility of avoiding uncertainty (benet) while committing re-sources (cost) and the relative magnitude of the objec-tive or subjective probabilities.

Expected utility has been generally accepted in riskliterature as a model of rational choice for taking riskydecisions [13] and is considered to be a very robustframework for decision making under conditions of uncertainty [14]. Rationality can be dened as ‘‘agree-able to reason; not absurd, preposterous, extravagant,foolish, fanciful, or the like; intelligent, sensible’’ [15].According to EUT, rational actions of risk actors (indi-viduals who inuence and/or own the risk process) canbe dened as follows [13, p. 43]:

Expected Utility Theory

No riskmitigation

actionG + (Q x A)

1 - Q

Riskmaterialises

Risk does notmaterialise

Q

A + G

Riskmitigation

actionP x A

1 - P

Riskmaterialises

Risk does notmaterialise

P

A

G

O

Probability UtilityChoice

Fig. 1. Expected utility theory.

592 E. Kutsch, M. Hall / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 591–599


24/83

rational actors can choose between different possibleactions. Actions may differ in kind and scale; rational actors assign (objective or subjective) proba-bilities to various outcomes; rational actors can order possible actions according totheir preferences;

rational actors try to choose an action, which is opti-mal according to their preferences.

An important aspect of EUT is the assumption of astate of perfect knowledge for risk actors [13]. Completecertainty implies [16, p.129]:

a clear and unambiguous identication of the prob-lem, its constituent elements and its causes; perfect information about all the relevant variables interms of both quantity and quality; a well-developed model of the problem which incorpo-rates all the variables likely to inuence the decisionoutcome and a perfect understanding of the mannerand scale of interaction; an exhaustive list of all possible solutions; an unambiguous statement of the objectives which isspecic, quantiable and internally consistent; perfect knowledge of the future consequences of eachpossible solution and their implications for the project; the availability of all the resources and sufficiency of reliability in all the structures and systems necessaryfor the successful implementation of the chosensolution; the presence of perfectly rational and experienced

decision-makers with unlimited analytical and cogni-tive abilities.

For the purposes of clarity, we have assumed that theproject manager is the main risk actor. However, projectmanagement literature suggests that various stakehold-ers, which may include individuals and organisations,may be directly or indirectly involved in the process of managing risk. While recognising the involvement of these stakeholders, the focus for our research was onthe project manager as the main risk actor, althoughthe contributions of other risk actors were relevant tosome aspects of the research, as will become apparent.

In the context of project risk management, the prefer-ences of project managers should only relate to the ac-tive mitigation of that risk with adverse consequenceson project objectives of time, cost and quality [4,9,17].However, although this describes how managers shouldmake decisions when undertaking risk management, evi-dence shows that their actions often deviate from EUT(e.g. [18,14,19,20]. Deviation from EUT may derivefrom, for example [21, p. 251]:

the uncertainty associated with taking any given actionand whether or not negative outcomes will result;

cognitive and emotional overload that results fromawareness of risk in many (of not most) behaviours;

the complex and varied dynamics associated with per-forming any given behaviour.

3. Methodology

While EUT describes a rational approach to theunderstanding and management of risk, either as threator opportunity [23] the concern of this paper was thelived reality of project managers involved in IT pro-

jects and how this impacted upon the orderly pursuitof a management of risk predicated on EUT. In thissense, it encompassed a decision making process thatdealt with uncertainty, encompassing as it does, riskmanagement, but also including the broader processesof decision making in risky and uncertain project envi-ronments [23]. Essentially, the concern was with beha-viour and activities that interrupted (or intervenedwith) the process of risk management predicted byEUT. Beyond this, the concern was to develop anunderstanding of how and why these behavioursoccurred, what their effect tended to be, and whatimplications these effects might hold.

Research has previously been conducted into behav-iour when managing risk in disciplines such as in psy-chology and general management [6,21,24]. However,this paper focuses upon intervening conditions and theireffect on risk management in the context of IT projects.

As the objective was to develop an understanding of how these conditions arose, an exploratory research ap-proach using semi-structured interviews was adopted.This involved an iterative process of proposing andchecking for patterns, both during the interviews andin subsequent analysis, in order to develop insights intobehaviours and approaches adopted by IT project man-agers in practice.

During analysis, the approach was one of seeking andevaluating similarities and differences between the casesor groups of cases, each interview representing a speciccase. This entailed selecting categories, categorising eachcase and looking for similarities and differences bothwithin groups and between groups. In this study, catego-ries included

the overestimation of risk compared with itsunderestimation;

high-perceived risk as opposed to low-perceived risk; success of a project compared with failure of a project.

The approach taken was to examine the ndingsand create categories. The literature was then revisitedto establish whether the issue had previously beenaddressed elsewhere.

E. Kutsch, M. Hall / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 591–599 593


25/83

In total, 19 IT project managers and consultants wereinterviewed from eleven separate companies ( Table 1 ).The interviews were semi-structured in nature, includingquestions such as:

Why were risks overlooked? Why did risks that were expected to materialise not, infact, materialise?

Were any project risk management stages ineffective?If so, why?

In selecting the sample, the aim was to acquire datafrom a range of IT projects, large and small, complexand less-complex. This was reected in the sample. An-other feature of the sampling approach was to achievedata saturation [25]. In this sense, we identied catego-ries and themes arising from the interview, until nonew categories emerged. The project managers eitherdiscussed projects they were currently involved with,or ones on which they had recently been working. Theprojects were of a wide variety of values and timescales.The interviews were each of between one and two hoursduration. The interviews were then transcribed andanalysed.

4. Findings

In the analysis of the interviews, a fourfold typologyemerged, describing behaviours and activities that project managers were either aware of, or were implied bytheir comments, which intervened, or interrupted the ra-tional and orderly management of risk during IT projects. We called these intervening conditions , drawingon Strauss and Corbin s [26, p.103] denition: ‘‘Inter-

vening conditions are the broad and general conditionsbearing upon action . . . [they]. . .. either facilitate or con-strain action’’. These are summarised in Table 2 andsubsequently discussed in detail, drawing on indicativequotations from the interviews in order to illustrate par-ticular points.

4.1. Denial of uncertainty

The rst condition that emerged related to risk as an

object of

awe ; an

object to be

feared by those in-volved in projects. It seemed that project managers wereunwilling to expose their customers to risks becausethose risks might have created anxiety and doubtsamong the stakeholders about the competency of theservice provider:

‘‘We presented ourselves in such a way that we wouldseem as reasonable and competent as possible. Andproblems and risks don t go down so well. We wantedto come across as people who could get the projectunder way and complete it. The rst aim was to winthe tender, no matter what the cost . . . I didn t want to

be the doomsayer in the euphoric preliminary phase . . .Problems were kept to a minimum, simply in order tocome across as a competent provider.’’ (Interviewee 5)

The refusal to admit that risks existed, or their con-cealment, in order to avoid exposing stakeholders toan object perceived as a ‘‘dread’’ and, consequently,threat to the viability of the project, was categorised asdenial of uncertainty . This can be dened as a refusalby project managers to expose other project stakehold-ers to negative discomforting risk related information.The underlying condition of denial was the refusal of project managers to believe in uncertainties with

Table 1Characteristics of the interviewees and their projects

Interviewee ref. Organisation Position Approx. project volume (£m) Duration (months)

Interviewee 1 Company A IT project manager 15 36Interviewee 2 Company B IT consultant n.a. 18Interviewee 3 Company C IT project manager n.a. 1Interviewee 9 Company C IT project manager 10 2Interviewee 4 Company D IT project manager 0.08 0.25Interviewee 5 Company E IT project manager 18 12Interviewee 6 Company F IT project manager 1 12Interviewee 7 Company G IT project manager 30–40 18Interviewee 10 Company H IT project manager 3 14Interviewee 11 Company I IT project manager n.a. 18Interviewee 12 Company J IT project manager 10 18Interviewee 13 Company J IT project manager 150 48Interviewee 14 Company J IT project manager 1–2 1Interviewee 15 Company J IT project manager 40 6Interviewee 16 Company J IT project manager 100 6Interviewee 17 Company J IT project manager 1000 120Interviewee 18 Company J IT project manager 30 n.a.Interviewee 19 Company K IT project manager 8 36

n.a., this information was unavailable or undisclosed.

594 E. Kutsch, M. Hall / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 591–599


26/83

possible adverse consequences on the project outcome,rooted in the desire not to expose themselves or otherstakeholders to something that was perceived as‘‘worrisome’’.

This attitude to risk has been described as one of treating it as taboo . ‘‘Taboo matters are literally whatpeople must not know or even inquire about. Taboosfunction as guardians of purity and safety through so-cially enforced sanctioned rules of (ir)relevance’’ [27,p. 8].

In another instance,

‘‘His words to me [were] You re the project manager, aprofessional project manager, you must have seen thisproblem happening before now . I had no choice but tosay Yes David, I did see it happening before now, butthere were very good reasons why I chose not to escalate

to you about that at a different time .’’ (Interviewee 9)In this particular case, the risk was not actively man-

aged because it was seen that in mentioning the verysubject of risk, the customer would become aware of itand this awareness would jeopardise the relationship be-tween the customer and the project management team.The relationship between the understanding of and per-ception of risk appeared to lead to cautiousness amongproject managers in developing more understandingabout specic risks and their implications for their par-ticular projects. Another interviewee elaborated on thisissue:

‘‘The question is how specic you want to go. Pullingout a generic risk is ne and people can see the red aggo up but unless an absolute showstopper sat right inmy arena of operations then I would not necessarilythink it was my case to raise it. Informally I wouldsay it to the project risk assessor: you need to talkto so and so because I think they have an issue .’’(Interviewee 13)

In summary, it was found that, project managersresponsible for the management of risk acted to reduceanxiety and consternation among customers and otherstakeholders by not confronting them with uncertain-ties and risks; in other words, they concealed or deniedthe presence of risk and uncertainty. This behaviourwas either purposeful (they would make a decisionnot to mention specic, project-related risks) or uncon-scious (they did not dwell on the presence of risk,thereby not having to mention it as an issue). Schneid-ermann [28, p. 22] hypothesised that, because of the‘‘fear of the unknown’’ risk actors tend to be unwillingto manage risks. The nding here seemed to suggestthat their unwillingne

Documents

IJCM Vol 23 Issue 8