Entidad: Datalogger

The focus group interviews were performed after the survey was completed. Therefore, the findings and ambiguities of the survey were more thoroughly analyzed and clarified in the focus groups. The questions for the focus group were separated into two parts: the questions for transition and the key questions. The quality of the answers to the key question is fundamentally dependent on introductory transition question.

Questions for transition

The transition phase was intended to more fully engage the attention of the focus group participants. A question had to be developed that connects the participants’ personal interests in project management to the topic of this thesis, managing complex projects. This question was not meant to be evaluated; it was designed to outline the participant’s view on the topic, how much they are affected by it in their own projects, and how they react to the specific situation of managing complex projects.

Three questions were presented in the focus group guide (see chapter 7.2.2.1). The first addressed the participants’ interest in the topic: How does the topic “optimal handling of complexity in project management” interest you? For this question, the participants should indicate their desire to actively to involve themselves in the discussion. Partici- pants were encouraged to think about complex projects. If so, the in-depth questions begin: Have you ever been affected with a complex project, either as a stakeholder, pro- ject manager, or project team member? Participants of the focus group should reflect on

their experiences of being involved in complex projects. In general, people initially re- member the positive and negative effects resulting from a complex project. Based on that reflection, the final question for transition was asked: How did you behave within this situation? Participants were prompted to give examples of the way that they han- dled complex projects, regardless of whether they are aware of the specific methods of handling complex projects.

After focusing the mind-set of participants to the management of complex projects, the key questions were addressed.

Developing key question #1: Do you agree with the top complexity strengtheners and do you also handle them by control/ reduction?

The input for the key question #1 was based on the presentation of the results of the online survey for complexity strengtheners and the way to handle them.

This had to be verified with the following question: Do you agree with the top complexi- ty strengtheners and do you also handle them by control/ reduction?

Strengtheners impact projects. The foundation of managing complex projects is based on the potential methods of handling those strengtheners. The top five strengtheners from the online survey were found to be: customer requirements, stakeholders, com- munication process, division of work, and organisational changes. Typically those areas are the responsibility of the project manager. A project manager must insist on realistic requirements, the involvement of stakeholder, information distribution, and the delega- tion of specific tasks. The survey showed that more than 85% of the participants choose to control or reduce complexity when it first occurs.

Because the focus group participants belong to the same population as the survey partic- ipants, the expectation was that the survey results would be largely confirmed. The re- searcher also expected to discover additional commentary that could expand under- standing and practical applications.

The following key question was developed from the findings of key question 1 and a re- flection on today’s failing projects as discussed in chapter 3.

Key question #2: Does project success depend on certified project managers, and do you as a certified project manager manage vulnerable processes using the stat- ed detailed handling methods?

In the online survey, PMI project managers reported that more than 70% of their pro- jects were successful. This success was also analyzed in the survey for each single knowledge area of PMI: communication, cost, human resources, integration, procure- ment, quality, risk, schedule, and scope. The overall success of projects was also ad- dressed. The success rate might be related to the project management certification of participants. If this could be confirmed by the participants of the focus group, then the complexity of projects could be possibly handled by applying the PMI standard. If the participants did not view certification as the basis for success, then the reasons for that refutation would be investigated.

Furthermore, the applications of the different handling methods on top vulnerable pro- cesses for complexity in project management were discussed with participants in the focus group. The handling methods are for controlling complexity the rational and reali- ty approach, and for reducing complexity the learning from others, structuring/ labels and standardizing approach.

Therefore, the following question was asked in the focus group: Is a project success de- pendent on certified project managers and as a certified project manager do you manage vulnerable processes in a project using the stated detailed handling methods?

From the direct discussion with experts, the researcher expected to gain more in-depth knowledge related to project success and the value of PMI certification. Also, a general consensus on handling vulnerable processes in project management was anticipated to emerge from the focus group.

Key question #3: When you think about your own complex project, do you find yourself in the following table with the strengtheners and unimmunized processes in the project? Compare your identified field of the project with strengtheners and vulnerable processes of your project. Are they the same?

From results of the online survey, a classified matrix to identify complexity in projects was developed. This matrix consists of three tables that combine the following variables: complexity strengtheners, the most and least affected processes for complexity in pro-

jects, the participants’ categorization of the level of complexity in their own projects, the size of the projects, and the industry where the participant’s project is located.

The matrix was developed from the online survey and was then be evaluated by the fo- cus group concerning its application to practice.

Therefore, both the participants of the focus group and the online survey participants were asked to categorize their project concerning complexity and size. Afterward, the participants were asked to examine the complexity strengtheners and processes vulner- able to complexity in their own project based on the complexity and size of those pro- jects. The criteria for this evaluation were based on the results of the online survey. Therefore, the matrix developed to identify complexity in projects should be tested in practice to determine whether it is applicable for daily use.

Aimed to the examination of participants’ own project, the key question was formulated as follows, separated into two parts, and supported with the graphic tables:

Part one: When you think about your own complex project, do you find yourself in the following table with the strengtheners and unimmunized processes in the project? Part two: Compare your identified field of the project with strengtheners and vulnerable processes of your project. Are they the same?

The visualization for the matrix to identify complex projects with its strengtheners/ vul- nerable processes and field of industry they appear, should be tested systematically in a broadened community of experts.

Key question #4: How can an adopted PMI standard support you in manoeuvring a complex project? Spending a separate chapter or explaining new methods for managing it?

The last key question back couples a link to key question #2. Participants were asked to explain the success of projects as stated in the survey by the certified project managers. In addition, key question 4 asks the participants to discuss whether the PMI standard effectively addresses the handling of complexity in the PMI standard, and if an adaption of the standard is necessary. In the survey, the majority of participants stated that PMI handles complexity effectively, but still requested a separate chapter in the PMI stand-

ard. If focus group participants agree, then the discussion will focus on the implementa- tion of new methods to handle complexity.

The participants then discussed following key question:

How can an adapted PMI standard support you in manoeuvring a complex project? Would a separate chapter on managing complexity be helpful? Should the PMI standard provide an explanation of new methods for managing complexity?

In general, the researcher expected the answers to the key questions to be similar to the results of the survey because the survey participants and the focus group participants were selected from the same population. Therefore, an intersection of the survey partic- ipants and focus group participants was possible. The additional information given from the experience of focus group participants and the possibility of deepening questions on focus group answers should provide in-depth knowledge and practical modifications of the standard.

The final guide for the focus group interview is shown in Appendix XXIX – Guide for the focus group interviews (FGI) with PMI members in Germany.