CAUSAS Y TIPOS:

The system analysis frameworks used today to describe project based organizations were reviewed through scientific journals and textbooks. The Project Management Journal and the International Journal of Project Management are two examples of the primary scientific journals used for discovery. A simple definition of a project is considered to be “a series of activities or tasks that have a specific objective, have defined start and stop dates, have funding limits, and consume resources” (Kerzner, 1998, p. 2). Project management is the management of projects (Kerzner, 1998). A classic view described Project Management as the planning, organizing, staffing, controlling, and directing of personnel and resources associated with the activity or task (Kerzner, 1998). The literature reflected the new realization of the importance of project

selection on overall organizational viability. The goal of project selection is “to create value for the business” (Aubrey, et al, 2007, p.328). The literature acknowledged efforts to form Project Management Offices (PMOs) and redefine project manager responsibilities to focus on project purpose with respect to organizational value (Aubry, et al, 2007, p. 328). The importance of project selection to the overall well-being of the organization was discussed but universal frameworks have not been offered to begin to isolate and define project level viability. “Project teams are temporary and a lot of learning may be lost when they disband” (Ruusak, Vartianinen, 2005, p.374). The literature pointed to hierarchal management style advantages and business leadership goals to achieving success, but falls far short of providing an accessible framework

that that could examine viability as postured by the Viable System Model. This depth of examination is evident from Table 2 of the literature review. Table 2 highlights the areas of literature that emerged from the review of Project Management Systems and notes the lack of System Theory literature directed toward PMS.

The literature review explored the writings associated with the systems view of PMS’s. A program is defined as “a group of related projects, subprograms, and program activities managed in a coordinated way to obtain benefits not available from managing them individually”

(PMBOK, 2013, p. 9). The literature review searched for articles that discussed project

management structure and were categorized below in Table 2 to show the scarcity of literature available on project management structure:

Table 2: Literature Review for Project Management Systems

The limited available literature revealed the need for further research in Project System theory as it pertains to Management Structure. Project Management for Business, Engineering, and

Technology, by Nicholas and Steyn (2008), offered some insight into the system’s view of the

design process associated with project management structures. For example, Nicholas and Steyn

Authors Project Definition Link Projects with Business Strategy Project Structure Analysis View Projects as Building Blocks of an Organization

View need for PMO for Multiple Project Project Success Performance System Theory

(Dietrich & Lehtonen, 2005){Aramo- Immonen, 2009 #758}

Yes Yes Yes Yes

(Hobbs & Aubry, 2007) Yes Yes Yes

(Srivannaboon, 2006) Yes Yes Yes Yes

(Aubry, et al., 2007) Yes Yes Yes Yes

Ruuska, I.; Vartiainen, M.

Yes Yes

(Sense, 2008) Yes Yes Yes Yes

(Caron, Fumagalli, &

Rigamonti, 2007) Yes Yes

(Stewart, 2008) Yes Yes

(van Donk & Molloy,

2008) Yes Yes Yes Yes

(Olsson, 2006) Yes Yes Yes

(Reich, 2007) Yes Yes Yes Yes

(Cicmil & Hodgson,

2006) Yes Yes Yes Yes

(Kolltveit, Karlsen, & Grønhaug, 2007) Gronhaug, K.

Yes Yes

(Pant & Baroudi, 2008) Yes

(Sutterfield, Friday- Stroud, & Shivers- Blackwell, 2006)

Yes Yes

(Martinsuo, Hensman, Artto, Kujala, & Jaafari, 2006)

Yes Yes Yes

(Rozenes, Vitner, &

Spraggett, 2004) Yes Yes Yes Yes

(Thiry, Deguire, &

Irnop, 2007) Yes Yes Yes

(Pollack, 2007) Yes Yes

Vitner, G.; Rozenes, S.; Spraggett, S.

Yes

(Aramo-Immonen &

(2008) describe a four phase approach of the systems development cycle: concept phase, definition phase, execution phase, and operation phase as seen in Figure 4 below:

Figure 4: System Development Cycle {Adapted from Nicholas and Steyn (2008, p. 119)}

The individual phases of the project management systems development cycle are viewed here from a system’s perspective. This example illustrated the need to attain more knowledge into the project management structure in the context of engineering management and the need for more useful tools to support such analyses. While continuous planning and project related

functions are highlighted and explained in the example, the need for more systemic perspectives of internal interactions and the viability of project based organizations are lacking adequate foundations of research. This exemplifies the state of Project Management literature with respect

to a Systems Theoretic perspective demonstrates not only the scarcity of the intersection but also the limited depth and sophistication of rigorous accounting of Systems Theory in PMS.

Project structure can be described from the perspectives of social structure, goals, participants, technology, and the environment as seen in Figure 5, A Model of a Project adapted from Leavitt’s Diamond, (Scott, 1998) below:

` Project Social Structure Participants Technology Goals Environment

Figure 5: A Model of a Project {Adapted from Leavitt’s Diamond, (Scott, 1998, p. 17)}

A model of a project is shown in Figure 5 and reflects how the technology, social structure, goals and participants are interrelated within an organization. These interactions within the project are influenced by the environment. The current literature is lacking the empirical analysis of project management structure of projects (Scott, 1998).

Project Management Structures described in the literature tend to focus on the hierarchal interconnections associated with the top down management pyramid where the project leader (at the top) manages the workforce below. For example, Scott (1998) suggests that the project would be divided into five phases: conceptual, definition, production, operational, and

divestment. The responsibility for the project would be with the project lead. How the project was considered to be viable as a project was never discussed; rather an emphasis was placed on meeting the milestones of the five cycles.

The project management structure of the project was not designed for viability, but rather the pre-determined success factors associated with initial project’s objectives (PMBOK, 2013). Project success is the completion of pre-defined success factors. Project management of viability is the management of projects to ensure they are viable as a project and to the organization. This lack of emphasis on project viability in the initial construction and duration of the project creates the void where the adapted VSM for PMS can help to fill within the body of knowledge of project managements systems.

The structure associated with the models presented by Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK, 2013) and the VSM offer insight into the project structure. PMBOK will be viewed through the VSM lenses. Dietricha and Lehtonen (2005, p. 386) point out that

“projects and project management serve as primary capabilities of an organization to respond to change and thereby maintain a competitive edge…. Projects may be considered as building blocks in the design and execution of future strategies of the organization …. . Current literature lacks empirical evidence on the functionality of different management approaches, formal or informal”. Also, they add that “Described models are often context-related, present often

relatively local solutions to related problems and thus the generalizability of the results seldom cab be confirmed” (Dietrich, Lehton, 2005, p.386). “Single project characteristics and

management activities are closely related to the overall success of the organization” (Dietrich, Lehton, 2005, p.387). There is also an emphasis on linkage of projects to wider organizational aims, “When organizations link their projects to their business strategy, they are better able to accomplish their organizational goals” (Srivannaboon, 2006, p. 89). Sense (2008) wrote on the conditioning of project participant’s authority to learn within projects and the role the sponsor played with their hierarchical oversight where they may felt the lack of authority to learn. “Preventing project failure has become increasingly critical” within organizations (Donk and Molloy, 2008, p. 129). There is also a suggestion concerning separation of projects from other organizational functions, “Project management literature for the most part treated projects as a sub-set or branch of organization(s) at best and a concept utterly disconnected from the

organization at worst” (Donk and Molloy, 2008, p. 130). Donk and Molloy (2008, p. 130) go on to suggest that “As a consequence, all types of organizational phenomena are transformed and reduce to being understood within narrow project management terms, or projects are seen as separate entities within an organization but somehow untouched by the activities of the host organisation”. When organizations define projects as temporary organizations” they use this definition mainly to distinguish it from a hierarchical, functional organisation as being a permanent setting” (Donk and Molloy, 2008, p. 130). “In the current literature internal and external factors are already seen as being relevant to project management, such as, project environment, power, structure, and technology” (Donk and Molloy, 2008, p. 130). The need to “focus on structural, contextual and contingent factors of projects supports an exploration of the

relevance of organizational theory to project management, further, it illustrates that the existing literature implicitly addresses different projects structures and contingency factors that influence the design parameters within those structures” (Donk and Molloy, 2008, p. 131). Olsson (2006) discusses the need to keep projects focused while still being able to adapt to organizational changes caused by environmental uncertainty. The research of Olsson (2006, p. 68) points out that “the literature review found that flexibility is primarily an approach to improve effectiveness of projects rather than efficiency”. Cicmil and Hodgson (2006, p. 111) write “several prominent authors (Koskela and Howell, 2002; Maylor, 2001; Morris, 2004; Morris, Patel and Wearne, 2000;, Winch, 1996) have raised the need to introduce alternative theoretical approaches to the study of projects, and to identify the implications that they have for how we organize and manage projects”. Cicmil and Hodgson further add that (2006, p. 112) “identified three major deficiencies which are ingrained, maintained, and reproduced across the research field (of project management knowledge) through certain ontological, epistemological, and methodological assumptions: (1) the assumed universality of project management theory; (2) the lack of empirical studies of projects; and (3) the lack of alternative representations of “project””. Kollteveit, et al, (2007 p. 8) found that “the task and leadership perspectives together are dominant in modern project management literature…..focuses more on leadership than the traditional literature used to…..the leadership perspective is the single most used perspective today, and the project management literature shows a growing application of this”. Pant and Baroudi (2008, p. 124) write about “the importance of human skills in project management”, further adding that “ Project management is being viewed as the “new” form of general

one-of-a-kind endeavors in order to improve overall organisational performance” (Pant and Baroudi, 2008, p. 124). “There is a lack of research that actually examines the process

management process through the theoretical lens of stakeholders theory (e.g. Bourne & Walker, 2005, 2006), as well as a lack of research that has applied both stakeholder theory and the strategic management process to the project management” (Sutterfield, Friday-Stroud, Shivers- Blackwell, 2006, p. 26). “It is vitally important to the success of a project to have a project champion or sponsor” (Sutterfield, Friday-Stroud, Shivers-Blackwell, 2006, p. 30). Rozens, Vitner, and Spraggett (2006) add that they “are not aware of any literature survey on the subject of ‘project control’ undertaken over the past couple of decades”. They write that “the main argument against the BoK approach is that a single methodology does not fit all kinds of

projects” (Rozens, Vitner, and Spraggett, 2006, p. 6). In addition, “The PMBOK Guide does not refer to project control as a Knowledge Area”, but is embedded in other areas (Rozens, Vitner, and Spraggett, 2006, p. 6). “The PMBOK Guide defines the use of 21 processes that relate to planning, out of the 39 processes required for proper project management” (Rozens, Vitner, and Spraggett, 2006, p. 6).Although the benefits of PMBOK are recognized the implications of the above is that not one model defines all projects. The concept of a project based organization has emerged as noted by the following views. “The project management world uses one-

dimensional control systems although these do not integrate project objectives in any way. The main reason for using the one-dimensional control systems is its simplicity of implementation” (Rozens, Vitner, and Spraggett, 2006, p. 11). Thiry and Dguire (2007, p. 649) recognize “project- based organisation have received increasing attention in recent years as an emerging

project and general management and the importance of developing a common language that fosters dialogue” (Thiry and Dguire, 2007, p. 656). With the view of project based organizations comes the need for the management structure to manage these organizations. Cicimil, et al, (2006, p. 675) write of the “ontological, epistemological, and methodological assumptions underlying this (actuality) kind of research”. “Models need to incorporate not only “real” data but management perspectives of data” (Cicimil, et al, 2006, p. 683). Management’s perspective of the data contributes to the context of the data, given it more meaning. “The theoretical basis of PM is predominately implicit, and discussion of the theoretical basis of PM is rare” (Juilen Pollack, 2007, p. 272). Based on the above views, the need for a theoretical foundation for the PM of project based organizations is needed.

Based on the literature for Project Management Systems, we can make three primary conclusions. First, there is scarcity of the literature concerning Project Management Systems. Second, the reference to ‘systems’ in this literature does not find a deep basis in the foundations of systems theory or applications. Third, there is not rigorous empirical research that examines the nature, design, analysis or development of Project Management Systems from a systems theoretic perspective.