It's peoplewho get thingsdone!

five iicipjui ways ofumiKlfiy about thehuman dimension of project managementIn the third of his current series of articles, Terry Cooke-Daviesreflects on one of the most important and yet most misunderstoodaspects of project management - the human dimension.

There can be few people who woulddisagree that the human dimensionof project management is crucial tosuccessful projects. After all, projects

are delivered by groups of people workingtogether, not by techniques, tools, methodsor processes. Teams of people working welltogether on projects accomplish amazingresults, while others seem to struggle toaccomplish even the simplest tasks.

Yet the literature on project management isdominated by discussions of techniques,tools, methods and processes, rather than thehuman dimension. A detailed analysis of thecontents of six project management 'bodiesof knowledge , correlated with a review ofjournal articles published in both USA andEurope between 1988 and 19982 hasconfirmed what we all intuitively knew to bethe case: that three times as many 'technical'topics as 'people' ones are considered centralto what project managers need to knowabout-'. Does this mean that the focus ofattention of project managementpractitioners, researchers and professionalbodies is more on the technical side of projectmanagement than it is on the human side?

Not necessarily. Hidden away among theliterature are at least three hints that morethan lip service is paid to the importance ofthe 'human dimension'.

Firstly, although the research on criticalsuccess factors on projects is largely derivedfrom Baker Murphy & Fisher's classic analysisof those factors leading to success or failureon 650 aerospace, construction and other

projects'', a review by Thomas Lechler of448 German projects in 1998 led him toconclude that 'when it comes to projectmanagement, it's the people that matter'.Using a structural relationship analysis, hefound that 'people' factors accounted for 47%of the variance in project success, whereasother factors that he called 'activities' and'barriers' accounted for no more than 12%between them.

Secondly, Lynn Crawford'sresearch into the workplacecompetence of projectmanagers" found someevidence that project managerswho rated themselves morehighly than others for howmuch they carried outcommunications practices, alsotended to be seen as betterperformers by their

supervisors.And thirdly, analysis carried

out by Human Systems of 136projects' tends to supportthese conclusions. Half of thesix project managementpractices that correlate stronglyto improved time predictabilityhave a strong 'people-y' flavourto them: how adequately thewhole company is educated inrisk management, howadequately owners are assignedto each risk, and how adequatea document is that shows

which organisational unit is responsible forwhich activities.

These three hints on their own, however,hardly amount to conclusive evidence of whatwe intuitively know to be true - that it ispeople that deliver projects, not techniques,and it is the human factors that are decisive inachieving project success.

So what can we do, as project managementpractitioners, to redress the imbalance between' human factors' and ' technical factors' in theway the profession thinks about and talks aboutproject management?

Perhaps a part of the problem is that we areall human beings, and so assume a certain levelof competence in the human dimension.There is virtually no aspect of our lives inwhich we do not use our interpersonal skillsand attitudes to relate to other people, incontrast to the limited and professional use thatwe make of techniques such as critical pathanalysis.

So how can we reframe the way we talkabout and think about human factors onprojects in a more helpful way? How can wemake sure that our training and ourprofessional conversations give the ' humandimension' the emphasis it deserves?

Well, one way is to take seriously the term'dimension'. At a workshop held in January2000, members of the Network suggested thatit was misleading to view 'human factors' assimply a set of alternative 'knowledge areas' tothe technical factors listed in bodies ofknowledge. The reality is that every projectmanagement technique needs to be applied bythe people who make up the project team.There is truly a 'human dimension' to scopeplanning, to schedule management, to activity

Competence and Personal Learning

Technical Dimension

Figure 1: Two Dimensions of Project Management

16 PROJECT MANAGER TODAY JANUARY 2002

definition and so on. And this dimension isdistinct from the content of the techniqueitself.

In this article I am going to sketch out fivepossible lenses through which to view this'human dimension', and to list the topics thata serious discussion of each of these'viewpoints' might possibly need to include.The relationship of these viewpoints to theclassic ' knowledge areas' (which I am callingthe 'technical dimension', since it relatespredominately to techniques and tools) isillustrated in Figure 1.The five viewpoints are as follows:

• Leadership• Competence and personal learning• Relationships• Governance• Sustainability and organizational learning.

LeadershipThe first view of the human dimension that Iwant to consider is the perennial topic of'Leadership'. It is a topic that has been aroundfor as long as people have been writing aboutmanagement in general and projectmanagement in particular. There are tworeasons that it seems particularly appropriateto put it in the place of honour in this article,however.

Firstly, as I pointed out in an earlier article,these are difficult times for manyorganizations, and it is at precisely suchdifficult times that leadership is at a premium.

The second point is perhaps moreprovocative. Ever since I first read John Kotteron the difference between leadership andmanagement , I have been aware of thedifferent titles used by project managers -project leader, project manager, projectengineer, project director, programmemanager and so on. The list seems to belimited only by human ingenuity!

In spite of this confusion of terms, however,it is possible to make a strong case for usingthe term 'project leader' to describe the seniorexecutive on a project, rather than the term'project manager'. It is understandable whywe often don't do this. After all, projectmanagement, as practised in the modernorganization, has its roots in engineering andin control theory. And in terms of controllinga project, it is appropriate to talk about a'project manager' and 'project management'.Indeed, all the world's professional bodies thatseek to represent project managers use theterm 'management', and this magazine isentitled 'Project MANAGER Today.'

With the expansion of the projectmanagement world view into more andmore areas of organizational life today,however, projects and programmes havebecome the way in which an organizationchooses to structure the work that isdesigned to change its capability in someway, in order better to equip it to cope with

the challenges it expects to face.The case can be argued that there are two

different world views that are appropriate tothe way we think about all organizationalwork - processes (operations, transactions),and projects (or programmes). Processes areabout coordinating people who have specificwork-related competencies and tend to beorganized into functional departments, so thatthey work together effectively to satisfy therepetitive demands of the organization'scurrent customers and stakeholders. Processesare essentially about what happens today in anorganization.

Projects or programmes, on the other hand,are about introducing beneficial change to theorganization. In this context, projectmanagement is essentially interwoven withthe management of change - and change isthe province of leadership rather thanmanagement.Topics that might well be included under the'leadership' component include:% Visionary leadership• The management of change• Motivation• Team building and team development• Facilitation and group dynamics.

Competence and personallearningA second possible way of viewing the 'humandimension' is through the capability ofindividuals to thrive in a project orprogramme environment. It is closely relatedto leadership, since a major element ininspirational leadership appears to be self-knowledge, and the ability to control one'sown emotional climate so as to maintain anupbeat and encouraging environment.

We have alreadydiscussed projectmanagements roots incontrol theory. Thetrouble is that as theworld becomesincreasingly complex,the controls that weinstitute themselvesbecome a part of theproblem rather than apart of the solution.We have estimatedelsewhere that forevery £,\QG millionvalue that projectmanagers in well-runbusinesses promise todeliver to theirstakeholders, less than£80 million is actuallydelivered. And thissuggests that thecontrol approach justisn't working. Ofcourse, we can always

do the equivalent of the stereotypical Britishholidaymaker seeking to make himselfunderstood in foreign climes, and 'speaklouder and more slowly', and this is whatmany project managers indeed fall back on:more controls, more reports, moretimesheets, more bureaucracy.

Occasionally this may work (although wehave little evidence to suggest that it does),but what we do know is that when people andteams take the trouble to learn from relevantprior experience, and to apply this learningboth at the start of new projects, andthroughout their life, the project performanceis improved.Topics that appear relevant when the humandimension is viewed through the lens of personalcompetence are:• Knowledge, experience and personalqualities• Learning and personal development• Qualifications• Self-knowledge, emotional intelligenceand what Peter Senge calls 'Personal Mastery'• Neurolinguistic programming• Lessons learned, especially the 'tacitknowledge' aspect.

RelationshipsIt may seem a little eccentric to discussrelationships as a way of viewing the humandimension, but I do so because I amconvinced that relationships provide thedefining environment for all forms of humanflourishing. This is based partly on years ofpersonal experience and observation, andpartly on recent research in industrialpsychology and in project managercompetencies.

Firstly, in his influential book, 'Emotional

Functional Dimension

Projects & Programmes /Future Capability)

Processes (Present Capability)

I!73

I•8

<B

sea

S•I 8

III1

S i.5 41 !i I

i!

i

II'5

Figure 2: Projects as future-oriented work

PROJECT MANAGER TODAY JANUARY 2002 19

Intelligence', Daniel Goleman citessubstantial evidence that the quality ofrelationships has a major impact on people'shealth and well-being . Good relationshipshave a healing power, poor or no relationshipsadd to stress and damage health.

Secondly, two aspects of relationships weresingled out by Owen Gadeken as beingamong the small number of criticalcompetencies that distinguish outstandingproject managers from merely competentones in defence projects: 'interpersonalassessment' (meaning the ability to knowteam members well enough to assign themtasks that they will be competent to perform)and 'relationship development' (meaning theability to develop appropriate relationshipswith all project stakeholders).Topics that might be considered as a part of thisviewpoint include:0 Stakeholder management0 Team working

• Communications• Supply chain management• Communities of practice.

GovernanceGovernance is often discussed in terms of theprocesses by which key decisions are madeabout a project, such as the decision toprovide or withhold funds. I am suggestingthat there is an argument for includinggovernance as one of the five lenses throughwhich to view the human dimension ofproject management.

The argument has to do with creating anenvironment within which people canexercise their skills and knowledge to thebenefit of the project and, incidentally, tothemselves as well. The topic, as I am definingit, embraces the culture within which theproject leader and the team operate, and thestyle of interpersonal relationships withinwhich decisions are taken. At its heart is thedegree of day-to-day control that the projectteam is allowed to exercise, given their greaterknowledge of the circumstances that relate toany given operational decision.

Indeed, Rodney Turner has argued veryconvincingly that one of the majordifferences between project and programmework on the one hand, and operational ortransactional work on the other, is that in theproject environment there is, of necessity, adiscontinuity between governance andoperational control. This is one ofdifficulties facing organizations with a strongfunctional side of the matrix (see Figure 2),where the people who are likely to beresponsible for project governance, forexample as project sponsors, are likely to bemore comfortable with a management stylewhere governance and operational control gohand in hand.

The topics that this viewpoint might containinclude:

• Authorisation and 'contracts'• Empowerment with control• Organizational culture• Matrix management.

Sustainability and organizationallearningThe final viewpoint in the human dimensionis slightly different in kind from the others. Itrelates to both the quantity and the quality ofpeople who are working on projects andprogrammes.

If an organization is to undertake all theprojects and programmes that are necessary toimplement the chosen organizational strategy,then it follows that there must be sufficientpeople with the right competence, skills,attitudes and know how to deliver the wholeportfolio of projects.

The lens of'sustainability' encourages us toask ourselves what the future manpowerrequirements will be, and what is being doneto provide the right quantity and quality ofpeople. This applies equally whether theproject load is growing or reducing.Topics included in this viewpoint mightinclude:• Apprenticeship and situated learning• Education, training and careerdevelopment• Resource and capacity planning• Issues about matrix strength.

Concluding observationsIn this article we have reviewed five possibleways of looking at and talking about thehuman dimension, so as to give it the weightthat it deserves. If we are to act on thesesuggestions, then future 'bodies ofknowledge' or project managementtextbooks will not have one set of topics (thelarger one) on the tools and techniques ofproject management and another (thesmaller) on 'human factors'. Instead, whendiscussing any aspect of project managementknowledge, such as risk management, therewill be two different viewpoints from whichthe topic will be examined - on the one handtools and techniques, and on the other handthe human dimension.

And then, perhaps, we will deliver ,£110million of value for every ,£100 million thatwe promise!

Terry is the managing director ofHuman Systems International Limited,a company with operations in UK, USAand Australia, that supports a globalnetwork of organisations that arecommitted to working together toimprove their own organisations'results through projects. Peoplerepresenting member organizationswork together in workshops, in workingparties and in targeted benchmarkingstudy teams. In their own individualways, they demonstrate time and timeagain what can be accomplished whenthe environment allows people toflourish. Terry can be contacted atcooke-daviest@humansystems.co.uk.

1 The six bodies of knowledge were APM version 2, theCRMI1 proposal for the APM (subsequently adopted asversion 4), Rodney Turner's proposal in the InternationalJournal of Project Management (IJI'M), IPMA'sInternational Competency Baseline, PMI's PMBOK"Guide (1996 version), and Human System's ownCorporate Practice Questionnaire v3.

2 Themistocleous, G. and Wearne, S. H. Projectmanagement topic coverage in journals. InternationalJournal of Project Management. 2000; 18(1): pages 7-11.

3 See Chapter 2 and Appendix P-l in Cooke-Davies, T,'Towards Improved Project Management Practice', (2001),dissertation.com, USA.

4 Baker, Bruce N.; Murphy, David C, and Fisher, Dalmar.Determinants of Project Success. (1974) NationalAeronautics and Space Administration: NGR 22-03-028.

5 Lechler, Thomas. When It Conies To ProjectManagement, It's The People That Matter: An EmpiricalAnalysis of Project Management in Germany. Hartman,Francis; Jergeas, George, and Thomas, Janice. IRNOP III.The Nature and Role of Projects in the Next 20 Years:Research Issues ,\\\d Problems. Calgary. University ofCalgary; 1998.1

6 Crawford, Lynn. Profiling the Competent ProjectManager. Proceedings of PMI Research Conference;Paris. Philadelphia: Project Management Institute, Inc.;2000

7 Cooke-Davies, T. op. cit. pp 197 to 203

8 Kotter.John P. (1990) ' What Leaders Really do', HBR,reprinted in Volume 79 Number 11, December 2001.

9 Goleman,D., Boyatzis, 11., and McKee, A. (2001) 'Primal Leadership: The Hidden Driver of GreatPerformance.' , HBR. Volume 79 Number 1 1, December2001.

10 Goleman, D. (1996) ' Emotional Intelligence' ,Bloomsbury, London, England pp 178 to 179.

11 Turner, R.. and Keegan, A. (1999) ' The VersatileProject-based Organization. Governance and OperationalControl' , European Management |ournal, Vol 17, No 3.

20 PROJECT MANAGER TODAY JANUARY 2002