Síntesis de los principales beneficios socioeconómicos asociados a la

This section elaborates on project-oriented interventions that are possible through the outcomes of an earlier process and on process-oriented interventions that are possible based on previous project- oriented results. The structure of this paragraph is shown in figure 7-4. During the interviews three different project-oriented intervention mechanisms are observed in this category and these mecha- nisms are discussed in section 7.5.1. The first two project-oriented interventions are based on a suc- cessful process. This means that during the process already a majority reached agreement (7.5.1.1) or

 Issue: A municipality has an implementation contract with a property developer for the rede- velopment of a large shopping mall in combination with housing development. In this contract agreements are made about the planning of the development and the real estate program that will be developed. However, the property developer indicates that as a result of the economic crisis implementation of the preliminary design is financially not feasible.

 Objective: The municipality wants that the agreements as laid down in the contract are imple- mented.

 Intervention: The municipality lets the developer first recognize that they cannot fulfil their commitments. Afterwards they offer him space to adapt the plan, in consultation with other stakeholders, and make the plan feasible. However, adaptations are only possible within cer- tain constraints. Thus guarantees the municipality that their main objectives remain intact.  Result: Main result so far is that this intervention was a new opening for the stalled process.

The substantial outcome is unknown because this process is still under way. However, it is ex- pected that the developer would succeed in optimizing the urban plan within the municipal conditions and would be able to make the development feasible.

 Context: The project manager from the municipality imposes constraints on the developer and thereby constrains the process of redesigning. This is possible because the municipality has al- ready certainty about their goals and moreover because these goals are set in an agreement with the developer.

that process agreements are made (7.5.1.2). It is also possible that a project management interven- tion can be applied because a process has failed (7.5.1.3).

Mirrored to these project-oriented mechanisms successful process-oriented interventions can occur as a result of project results. These mechanisms are discussed in 7.5.2. A successful control of scope or budget may lead to adaption of the scope or extension of the project (7.5.2.1). It is also conceiv- able that poor control of budget and planning leads to the decision that the ambitions of a project are reduced or that the project should stop completely (7.5.2.2).

Figure 7-4: Structure paragraph 7.5

7.5.1 Project-oriented interventions based on process results

7.5.1.1 Project-oriented interventions on basis of process majority

Description

The first example is a project-oriented intervention on basis of a majority acquired in a process. This means that during a collaboration process a majority of the stakeholders reached agreement, but still a small number of opponents remains. If the majority is large enough, it is possible to use a project- oriented intervention and to “command” the remaining opponents. Due to the pressure of the major- ity, the last opponents will not oppose against the intervention.

These interventions are mainly applied in situations where the interdependence complexity is high but the uncertainty of goals and the uncertainty of methods are decreasing. Agreement about the scope or methods is almost reached but convincing the latter opponents is a time consuming effort. Therefore this intervention mechanism is mostly aimed to speed up the process, for example by im- posing a deadline (box 7-13). Thereby it is specifically applied to solve unexpected issues. Initially the

project manager tried to attain agreement in a process and only if this fails, the project management intervention is applied.

This type of interventions is typically temporary and comprehensive. With a short intervention all in- volved stakeholders are brought into one line after which the project can move to the next phase.

Box 7-13: Example project-oriented intervention on basis of a process majority

Requirements for success

 The project manager has to clear objective to increase the speed of the project.  The involved stakeholders invested in a process approach.

 The majority agrees with the “concept appointments’, uncertainty of goals is low.  The last remaining opponents have no ability to block the process.

Explanation

The explanation for the success of this mechanism is the use of a critical mass. If a critical mass per- ceives advantages in achieving a specific goal, such as signing a contract or meeting a deadline, those parties will not accept that a minority is blocking this achievement. Therefore the initiative for the project-oriented intervention in this mechanism can be derived from the project manager, but he has no need to enforce the intervention. The intervention is pushed through by the critical mass itself. For the management of spatial development projects this means that a project manager does not have to focus on achieving full support for a plan but much earlier in gaining the support of a critical mass of stakeholders. This can be sufficient to attain objectives.

 Quote: “Ik kon me een deadline veroorloven omdat de mensen al in de goede richting liepen”  Issue: The exploration phase of a large spatial development project had to move to an agree-

ment about a ‘key planning decision’ (Dutch: planologische kernbeslissing). For the process manager it was difficult to manage on speed. For the completion of this project phase never a deadline was settled. This made it possible for stakeholders to slow down the process in the hope that it could deliver higher profits later.

 Objective: The process manager wanted to increase the speed of the process.

 Intervention: The process manager arranged a meeting with the initiating authority, the minis- try of Transport and explained that in the current situation he saw no possibility to reach agreement before the next elections. This was a big shock to the minister of Transport who ex- pected good results. As a reaction she imposed a strict deadline on the process and demanded results before the next elections.

 Result: Shortly after this intervention an agreement is reached and all involved stakeholders sign a letter to state that they support the ‘key planning decision’. The deadline is effective; the speed of the process increased while there are no negative side-effects on budget, perform- ance or support for the project.

 Context: This intervention was possible because already a majority of the stakeholders agreed about the preliminary plans. The pressure of this majority in combination with the deadline imposed from above was the right combination to gather support of all the stakeholders.

7.5.1.2 Project-oriented interventions based on process agreements

Description

In large projects the important stakeholders often make process agreements and thereby commit themselves to the process. With the process agreements stakeholders promise to undertake efforts for a positive process outcome. If the continuation of the process itself is in danger, the project man- ager can fall back on these process agreements and temporarily use project-oriented interventions to guarantee continuation of the project.

This intervention mechanism is applied in situations with uncertainty in methods but clear goals. If the stakeholders failed to reach agreement about a successful method to realize the defined goals, it is possible for the project manager to impose a method. Thereby these interventions are specifically deep and temporary to increase the quality of the project. This intervention can only be applied ex- post if the stakeholders first tried to attain success with a process approach.

Box 7-14: Example project-oriented intervention based on a process agreement

Requirements for success

 A group of stakeholders has undertaken a process to achieve the project objectives.

 All involved stakeholders have committed to this process and should commit efforts to make the process successful.

 The stakeholders already formulated jointly agreed goals; the uncertainty in goals is low.  Behaviour of one or more stakeholders threatens the achievement of these objectives.

 Issue: A group of 5 different governmental bodies had to cooperate in the authorization of a large spatial development project. In a short time they had to formulate responses on the ob- jections made against 13 permissions that were needed for the project. But the sense of ur- gency was missing. The authorities didn’t cooperate well and this caused the risk that the proc- ess would face serious delays and that the quality of the responses would be poor.

 Objective: The project manager wanted to achieve that the authorities were going to cooper- ate and he wanted to increase the speed of formulating the responses on the presented objec- tions.

 Intervention: The process manager composed a temporary project office and forced the 5 au- thorities to temporarily delegate their specialists for the current task to the project office. Dur- ing a short period of time in this project office sufficient capacity and knowledge was gathered to formulate responses on the objections.

 Result: Because a large group of specialist was forced to work together on one location and they could devote all their time to this project, both the speed and the quality of the process increased enormously.

 Context: In the beginning of the development all stakeholders signed a management agree- ment in which they committed themselves to the process. Before he made this intervention, the process manager remembered the stakeholders on their promise to show their best efforts for this project. Also he confronted them with the moderate results so far. In particular the threat that it would be publicly known that these governments are not able to meet their promised commitment ensured that the stakeholders were willing to work with this interven- tion.

 Breaking the made process agreements has negative implications for the obstructive stakeholders.

Explanation

The explanation for the success of this mechanism is that stakeholders opt for the least of two evils. Stakeholders in a network situation are often not inclined to accept project management interven- tions. It reflects their loss of influence or freedom. However, in this case not accepting the interven- tion does present an even greater loss, namely the breaking of process agreements. This can cause the picture of this stakeholder as an unreliable partner.

For the management of spatial development project this means that it can have major benefits to dis- pose a cooperative process of its permissiveness. By making process agreements a project manager can exert more control on the involved stakeholders.

7.5.1.3 Project-oriented interventions because process failed

Description

This mechanism can be applied if stakeholders had the possibility to cooperate but after a significant period of time the results of their cooperation are still insufficient. Despite of the process the actors did neither succeed in decreasing the uncertainty of goals or the uncertainty of methods. This failure of the process legitimizes that one of the stakeholders takes a leading role and switches to a project- oriented management style.

Typically these interventions are aimed to increase the speed and/or to strengthen the quality of the preliminary project plans. The interventions can be qualified as intense and narrow, aimed at the group of stakeholders that failed to cooperate.

Box 7-15: Example of a project-oriented interventions because process failed

Requirements for success

 There is invested in a process approach, but the results are disappointing.

 Quote: “De managers doken teveel in de inhoudelijke details en waren te weinig bezig met tempo sturing en het binden van partijen”

 Issue: During the development of a large spatial development project the cooperation between three governmental authorities is moderate. Stakeholders focus mainly at their own scope and responsibility and do not pay enough attention to collective interests. As a consequence the process slows down.

 Objective: Increase the speed of the process and meet a deadline for a allowance request  Intervention: One of the governmental authorities adopted a new and much more active role.

They chose for a project-oriented approach and started to manage the project on speed and substance.

 Result: The stakeholders were able to increase the speed of the process and meet an important deadline. Because they submitted a qualitative good plan before the deadline, the central gov- ernment awarded a grant of several millions to the project

 Context: This intervention was possible because the process was facing a huge slowdown. The stakeholder that adopted a leading role was the only party able to keep overview over the pro- ject.

 As a result of the failing process, achieving preliminary project objectives in terms of time, money or quality is under pressure.

 As a result of the failed process, there is a high uncertainty of goals and methods.

 The project manager has the capacity, whether or not temporary, to take the lead in the project.

Explanation

The explanation of the success of this mechanism is the lack of legitimate resistance capabilities. If a collaboration process achieves clearly insufficient results, the legitimacy of the argument, that proc- ess management leads to better decision making process and that stakeholders should be extensively consulted in making decisions, expires. The failure of the process creates a breeding ground for a counter movement, which is project management.

For the management of spatial development projects this means that a project manager should not have an exaggerated fear that a process approach harms the achievement of project goals. If the process fails, than a better opportunity arises for the project manager to use project management.

7.5.2 Process-oriented interventions based on project results

7.5.2.1 Process-oriented interventions based on project success

Description

Based on successful implementation of a project and the achievement of project objectives, process- oriented interventions can be implemented. An example is that if it becomes clear that a project achieved good results; this could lead to an extension of the project or a raise of the quality aspira- tions. This process-oriented change in scope can ultimately increase the support for the project again. The example in box 7-16 shows a project manager who took advantage of positive economic circum- stances to improve the quality of his project.

Requirements for success

 The project manager identifies favourable conditions allowing timely realization of project goals that goes beyond expectations.

 The project manager perceives potential to further improve the project conditions and to further support the realization of project goals.

 Relevant stakeholders have an interest in achieving the original project objectives or achieve other benefits from the intervention.

Explanation

The explanation for the success of this mechanism is that stakeholders like to repeat successes. Suc- cess in achieving project objectives reflects on all involved stakeholders. These stakeholders would like to expand these profits and thereby assume that the positive development will continue. Stake- holders are therefore prepared to use the opportunity and to support adaptation of the plans. For the management of spatial development this means that project managers can try to exploit situa- tions in which relevant stakeholders judge positively about the achieved results. This can be ideal times to restart processes and to improve the conditions for further performance.

Box 7-16: Example of process-oriented intervention based on project success

7.5.2.2 Process-oriented interventions based on project failure

Description

Process-oriented interventions can also be applied if a project faces setbacks. For example the with- drawal of funders can lead to the situation in which the realization of the project within budget be- comes impossible. In worst cases this leads to a complete standstill of the project or a permanent shut down of the project.

The challenge for project managers is to recognize the failure to meet project objectives in an early phase. Then successful process-oriented interventions can be implemented. If the project manager can show that by adjusting the scope or working method the performance can be improved, many in- volved stakeholders might support this intervention. Box 7-17 shows an example of a project man- ager who deals creatively with a financial setback and succeeds in finding a new way to realize his pro- ject.

Requirements for success

 The project manager points out timely that the achievement of project objectives is in danger.  A creative approach to adapt the scope or working method offers opportunities to still achieve

original project goals.

 Relevant stakeholders have an interest in meeting the original project objectives or achieve other benefits from the intervention.

 Quote: “Sommige mensen willen de oude plannen weer uit de kast halen. Maar we noemen de structuur met 3 eilanden nu de basiskwaliteit en daar gaan we niet aan tornen”

 Issue: A great urban development location in the water was achieved by creating islands and polders. The so-called “Port Island” and “Centre Island” were tied together as a large polder in the original design.

 Objective: The project office would like the Centre Island to function as heart of the district. Therefore, the district should have a separate identity, spatially distinct from other districts and have a strong relationship with the surrounded water.

 Intervention: When the time was right and the economy prospered, the project office went with a revised plan to the council to change the design from a 2-island model to a 3-island model. This was risky, because the proposal lacked a financial foundation. Yet they went to the alderman and the city council asking for support for the new model to increase the spatial qual- ity.

 Result: Politicians agreed fairly easily with this proposal and it had an incredible positive im- pact on the final quality. The polder structure is changed into an island and moreover the cen- tre Island is placed separately from the other islands. In the current economic crisis some op- ponents want to restore the old plans. But the project manager defined the new structure with 3 islands as “basic quality” and is not willing to change this basic quality.

 Context: In the late nineties there was a period of economic prosperity. This brought windfalls for the project. It was customary that these profits could be used to achieve more quality in the project. The final decision to change the plan was taken in 2001, on top of the economy in a period where “everything seemed possible.”

Box 7-17: Example of process-oriented intervention based on project failure

Explanation

The explanation for the success of this mechanism is the awareness that anything is better than doing