Archive for the ‘Paper Review’ Category
Mapping project dialogues using IBIS – a paper preview
Work commitments have conspired to keep this post short. Well, short compared to my usual long-winded essays at any rate. Among other things, I’m currently helping get a biggish project started while also trying to finish my current writing commitments in whatever little free time I have. Fortunately, I have a ready-made topic to write about this week: my recently published paper on the use of dialogue mapping in project management. Instead of summarizing the paper, as I usually do in my paper reviews, I’ll simply present some background to the paper and describe, in brief, my rationale for writing it.
As regular readers of this blog will know, I am a fan of dialogue mapping, a conversation mapping technique pioneered by Jeff Conklin. Those unfamiliar with the technique will find a super-quick introduction here. Dialogue mapping uses a visual notation called issue based information system (IBIS) which I have described in detail in this post. IBIS was invented by Horst Rittel as a means to capture and clarify facets of wicked problems – problems that are hard to define, let alone solve. However, as I discuss in the paper, the technique also has utility in the much more mundane day-to-day business of managing projects.
In essence, IBIS provides a means to capture questions, responses to questions and arguments for and against those responses. This, coupled with the fact that it is easy to use, makes it eminently suited to capturing conversations in which issues are debated and resolved. Dialogue mapping is therefore a great way to surface options, debate them and reach a “best for group” decision in real-time. The technique thus has many applications in organizational settings. I have used it regularly in project meetings, particularly those in which critical decisions regarding design or approach are being discussed.
Early last year I used the technique to kick-start a data warehousing initiative within the organisation I work for. In the paper I use this experience as a case-study to illustrate some key aspects and features of dialogue mapping that make it useful in project discussions. For completeness I also discuss why other visual notations for decision and design rationale don’t work as well as IBIS for capturing conversations in real-time. However, the main rationale for the paper is to provide a short, self-contained introduction to the technique via a realistic case-study.
Most project managers would have had to confront questions such as “what approach should we take to solve this problem?” in situations where there is not enough information to make a sound decision. In such situations, the only recourse one has is to dialogue – to talk it over with the team, and thereby reach a shared understanding of the options available. More often than not, a consensus decision emerges from such dialogue. Such a decision would be based on the collective knowledge of the team, not just that of an individual. Dialogue mapping provides a means to get to such a collective decision.
From here to serendipity: gaining insights from project management research
Introduction
I’ve been blogging for over three years, during which I’ve written a number of reviews and summaries of research papers in project management and related areas. Research papers aren’t exactly riveting reads; at times it seems they are written to impress academics rather than inform laypeople. Nevertheless, it is useful to read papers because it can lead to insights that are directly applicable to professional practice. The main difficulty in doing this lies in finding papers that are relevant to one’s professional interests. In this post I discuss how one can go about finding the “right” papers to read. Further, as an illustration of how such random reading can lead to unexpected insights, I list some of the things I’ve learnt in the course of my rambles through project management research.
Prospecting for papers
My primary source for research papers is Google Scholar, which I browse in a somewhat haphazard fashion. I usually start a search with a couple of key phrases denoting a broad area – for example “risk analysis” and “project management”. I then browse the resulting list, short-listing titles that catch my attention. I read the abstracts of these, and make an even shorter list of those that I feel I’d like to read in full. Google Scholar has a “Related Articles” link below each result. I often follow this link for articles that I find particularly interesting. This usually yields a few more papers of interest.
Once I’ve determined the articles I want to read, I attempt to locate and download copies of these. This isn’t always straightforward: many papers cannot be accessed in full because they are copyrighted by journal publishers and are available only through paid subscriptions. However, many are available on author and university websites. Google Scholar helpfully highlights those that are available for download. Journal archives, such as JSTOR, are also good sources for copies of papers, but full access is usually available only to subscribers (check with your local university or public library system for more).
I then browse through the articles I’ve downloaded, printing out only those that that I think are worth a careful read. Yes, this choice is based on my subjective judgement, but then life’s too short waste time reading what others find interesting. That said, if one wants a more objective assessment of a paper’s worth, one can use the citation count (number of times a paper has been cited). Google Scholar displays citation count for most of the articles it displays. However, it should be noted that citation counts aren’t necessarily an indicator of quality.
In essence I look for interesting papers using keywords that describe things I’m thinking about. Fortunately I’m not doing research for a living so I can afford to read what I want, when I want – providing, of course, it doesn’t get in the way of my regular day job!
When reading papers, I usually keep a highlighter and pencil handy for making notes in the margins (very useful for when I’m writing reviews). If I’m reading a pdf document, the commenting and highlighting features of Acrobat are very useful.
Finally, it should be clear that what turns up depends very much on the keywords and phrases one uses. This choice is dictated by ones interests. My professional interests tend towards foundational and philosophical aspects of project management, so my searches and many of my reviews reflect this.
Serendipity at work
I’ve used this technique for about as long as I have been blogging. Along the way I have come across some truly exceptional papers which have influenced the way I think about and do my job. Below are some posts that were inspired by such papers:
Project management in the post-bureaucratic organisation: A critique on the use of project management as a means to direct creative and innovative work. Based on: Hodgson, D.E. , Project Work: The Legacy of Bureaucratic Control in the Post-Bureaucratic Organization , Organization, Volume 11, pages 81-100 (2004).
A memetic view of project management: Wherein project management is viewed as a collection of ideas that self-propagate. Based on: Whitty, S. J., A memetic paradigm of project management, International Journal of Project Management, Volume 23, pages 575-583 (2005).
Cox’s risk matrix theorem and its implications for project risk management: Describes some logical flaws in the way risk matrices are commonly used. Based on: Cox, L. A., What’s wrong with risk matrices?, Risk Analysis, Volume 28, pages 497-512 (2008)
The user who wasn’t there: on the role of the imagined user in project discourse: Highlights the use of imagined (as opposed to real) users to justify specific design views and/or decisions in projects. Based on: Ivory, C. and Alderman, N., The imagined user in projects: Articulating competing discourses of space and knowledge work, Ephemera, Volume 9, pages 131-148 (2009).
The myth of the lonely project: Discusses why project managers need to be aware of the history, culture, strategic imperatives and social dynamics of the organisations within which they work. Based on: Engwall, M., No project is an island: linking projects to history and context, Research Policy,Volume 32, pages 789-808 (2003).
The papers referenced above are just a small selection of the interesting ones I have stumbled on in my random rambles through Google Scholar.
…and so, to conclude
Professional project managers rarely have the time (or inclination) to read research papers related to their field. If you don’t browse research papers often, I hope this piece has convinced you to give it a try. Although the time you invest may not get you that new job or promotion, I guarantee that it will give you fresh insights into your profession by leading you from here to serendipity.
Planning, improvisation and the passage of time
Introduction
In an earlier post inspired by this paper, I discussed how planning and improvisation are contrasting yet complementary aspects of organizational work. One of the key differences between the two activities lies in how time is perceived by those involved in performing them: in the planning world time is considered to be a resource that can be measured and apportioned out to achieve desired aims whereas improvisation takes place “outside of time”; it occurs instantaneously and (often) without any prior intimation. In this post I discuss these two contrasting views of time in greater detail and then look into some of their implications, both from the perspective of organizations and individuals who work in them.
The “planning view” of time
Organisational activities and events (like all human endeavours) are marked and measured by the flow of time. It is fair to say that concern for time – specifically, the way it is used – is one of the main preoccupations of those who run organisations. As Ciborra puts it:
Concern for time in any business organization is not new, nor rare. Think of concepts such as just in time or time based competition. In modern management, time is looked at as a fundamental business performance variable, even more important than money. Concepts such as lead time or time to market portray time as the cutting edge of competitive advantage.
In other words, time is viewed as a quantity that can be apportioned and allocated – budgeted – much like money. This obsession with planning and controlling time is what leads businesses to implement procedures and processes intended to reduce unpredictability and improve business efficiency. Improvisation is seen as undesirable because of its inherently unpredictable nature.
Planning anticipates future events and moves that will be made in response to them. However, they can only be based on what is known and foreseen at the time of formulation. Plans are thus based on a mix of past experience and anticipation of what the future might look like. Moreover, because an action cannot occur until all dependent prior actions are completed successfully, they implicitly assume that all planned actions will be completed. As Ciborra puts it:
Procedural planning anticipates moves and events as if already occurred and just translated on the other side of the “now”. That is, procedural planning arranges in front of the actor the past (actions thought of as accomplished and embedded into plans), so that in performing an action he/she can encounter “in the now” mileposts which prompt the actor to do the next move…
So, as paradoxical as it sounds, in the planning view, planned actions are seen as already accomplished in the future. In other words, plans assume that events and actions will evolve in an entirely predictable manner. Note that although uncertainties may be factored in through risk analysis and the development of alternate scenarios, even these are treated as alternate branches of known futures.
The “improvisation view” of time
Improvisation is generally preceded by an “instantaneous” flash of insight in which apparently unconnected experiences and knowledge are brought to bear on the situation at hand. The process is inherently unpredictable: one does not know when a flash of insight that precipitates an improvised action will occur. Since improvisation occurs on the spur of the moment, what is important is the cutting edge of time, the instant of action. In this sense, improvisation lies “outside of time.” However, this does not mean that the past does not matter. On the contrary, improvisers draw upon past experiences, possibly even more than planners do. However, they do so in ways that they are not consciously aware of before the moment of action. As Ciborra tells us:
Improvisation is extemporaneous because it does not belong to an orderly distillation, formalization and transfer of past experience into future mileposts. Indeed, when encountering the future improvisation relies on the past, but it deploys it by retrieving (quickly according to ordinary time) domains of experience in a moment of vision during which vast regions of experience are brought to bear on the situation at hand, as interpreted at that very moment
Instead of attempting to envision what a future situation might look like and plan responses to it, improvisation interprets and reacts to “future” situations as they occur. So, although the improviser draws upon the past, he or she is firmly focused on the present in which actions are formulated and carried out. In such situations, the improviser (who works outside of the plan) perceives time differently from others (who work by a plan) – more on this in a moment.
Implications for organisations
Let’s take a brief look at a couple of implications of the different conceptions of time outlined above.
First, because improvisation cannot be foreseen, it cannot be placed on an objective timeline prior to the event. Those who make elaborate, detailed plans aimed at encouraging creativity (which generally involves improvisation) in their organisations will, more often than not, be disappointed. Any creative activity that occurs will be despite the plan, not because of it.
Second, since it is impossible to know how the future will unfold, planners should accept (and welcome!) that there will always be an element of improvisation to even the most carefully planned activity. As a result of this, there will always be an irreducible element of uncertainty associated with any planned activity.
Third, it is important to keep in mind that although both planning and improvisation depend on the past, there is an important difference in the way the past is viewed in the two cases. As Ciborra states:
The two temporalities of routine (planned activity) and improvisation are characterized by the fact that in both the unfolding of the future “sucks in” the past, but they do so in distinct ways. In procedural planning, one meets the future by relying on “frozen”, predigested bits of the past, lumps of experience that have been made explicit. During improvisation it is our being in the situation that comes to the fore. The past, in terms of who we are and how we read the world is recollected on the fly, in response to the situation at hand.
The implication here is that plans are (largely) based on, explicit knowledge whereas improvisation draws on both explicit and tacit knowledge. This is another reason why improvised solutions cannot be (explicitly) articulated before the fact.
The passage of time
The two conceptions of time are subjective in the sense that they describe how the flow of time is perceived by the person carrying out the planned or improvised act. In his book, The Labyrinth of Time, the philosopher Michael Lockwood mentions the example of the basketball player Michael Jordan, who once said that when maneuvering through a bunch of defenders (an improvised act), time seemed to slow down for him (though clearly not for the spectators and bemused defenders). Based on this, Lockwood suggests that:
…our impression of the flow of time, as it elapses, reflects the rate at which consciousness is being stimulated. It is counted out in a cerebral counterpart of the “baud rate”, instead of units of (objective) time, per se.
Based Lockwood’s idea, I suggest that since improvisers are more engaged with what they are doing (than those who perform planned acts) they operate at a higher mental “baud rate” than normal. Hence their actions and perceptions will seem quick – even instantaneous – to others who operate at a normal mental “baud rate.” When people are truly engaged in an activity, time thus appears to slow down. However, clock time (or objective time) ticks on at its usual rate. So, when the improviser is done, he or she is often surprised at how much clock time has elapsed. In contrast, a person not fully engaged in an activity has an “eye on the clock”, so to speak. Such a person’s perception of the passage of time would be pretty much in synch with objective time.
Summary and wrap-up
Improvisation and planning are based on two very different conceptions of time. Planning views the future in terms of a sequence of activities that have a clear relationship to each other. Specifically, any point in the future is seen as a milestone that serves to flag what comes next. Further, despite all contingency plans, the assumption is that the future will indeed unfold in one of the ways envisioned. Improvisation, on the other hand, views the future as open and “up for grabs”. There is no conscious sequencing of activities; improvisers just do what feels right at the time. Although improvisers may anticipate events as consequences of their actions, there are no predefined milestones that mark out the flow of time. Since organisational work consists of a mix of planned and improvised activities, the upshot of the above is that time cannot be entirely planned out.
To end on a metaphorical note: if one compares the flow of time to that of a river or stream, then “planning time” is a river flowing through a well defined channel whereas “improvisation time” is more like a rain-fed freshet gushing down any which way it can, carving out new channels in the bargain.
Eight to Late 