Project Management: A Managerial Approach

N2 - Although there is a widespread agreement on the significant inherent disparities between different phases of innovation process, current management research largely ignores the differences of innovative project phases in the prescriptions of appropriate managerial activities. Further, not much emphasis has been put on the actual practices and actions of project managers, i.e., what is it that project managers actually do to manage innovative projects on a daily basis? This study addresses this gap in our understanding by investigating the dynamism of managerial activities and variations in the challenges faced by project managers in the inherently different front-end and development phases of the innovation process. To investigate the dynamics of managerial activities and challenges in the front-end and development phases of the innovation process, this study adopted a longitudinal, multiple case study approach looking into six industrial NPD projects in a graduate level product development course spanning an entire study year at Aalto University. For the study, six project managers - three with technical educational background and three with non-technical educational background - were interviewed thrice during the project life-span: in the front-end phase, early development phase and late development phase. Altogether 18 semi-structured interviews were conducted. A total of 858 managerial activities and challenges were identified in the interview transcripts. The data analysis resulted in 19 mutually exclusive categories of managerial activities which were further classified into five main classes: 1) general project management, 2) responsibility and ownership, 3) providing a suitable context for development work, 4) establishing a climate of trust, and 5) providing support within the project group. The results of the study showed differences between managerial activities in front-end and development phases of innovation process. In the front-end phase, the managers emphasized the importance getting to know the team members, and creating a common vision and understanding, whereas the allocation and scheduling of resources was emphasized in the later development phases. The most pressing challenges varied between phases as well, with for example ideation challenges resulting from the diverse approaches of the heterogeneous team members beings a key diversity challenge in the front-end, and the integration of the offsite team members the most pressing diversity challenge in the late development phase. The largest amount of the activities was reported in the front-end phase supporting earlier studies suggesting that managerial activities tend to decline over time, and that managers tend to retain or increase team member autonomy as the project proceeds. Also, the study supports previous studies noting early phases of the project to be significant for establishing behavioural norms in order to avoid failed or mediocre projects. Further, the study revealed task-oriented managerial activities to be dominant among the interviewed managers as opposed to people-oriented activities. However, managerial approaches did not remain static throughout the project but the examples of project manager either strengthening or decreasing the initially dominant task- or people-oriented managerial approach occurred. Finally, differences between project managers with technical and nontechnical backgrounds could be found regarding for example decision-making, role and task division, and hands-on participation.

AB - Although there is a widespread agreement on the significant inherent disparities between different phases of innovation process, current management research largely ignores the differences of innovative project phases in the prescriptions of appropriate managerial activities. Further, not much emphasis has been put on the actual practices and actions of project managers, i.e., what is it that project managers actually do to manage innovative projects on a daily basis? This study addresses this gap in our understanding by investigating the dynamism of managerial activities and variations in the challenges faced by project managers in the inherently different front-end and development phases of the innovation process. To investigate the dynamics of managerial activities and challenges in the front-end and development phases of the innovation process, this study adopted a longitudinal, multiple case study approach looking into six industrial NPD projects in a graduate level product development course spanning an entire study year at Aalto University. For the study, six project managers - three with technical educational background and three with non-technical educational background - were interviewed thrice during the project life-span: in the front-end phase, early development phase and late development phase. Altogether 18 semi-structured interviews were conducted. A total of 858 managerial activities and challenges were identified in the interview transcripts. The data analysis resulted in 19 mutually exclusive categories of managerial activities which were further classified into five main classes: 1) general project management, 2) responsibility and ownership, 3) providing a suitable context for development work, 4) establishing a climate of trust, and 5) providing support within the project group. The results of the study showed differences between managerial activities in front-end and development phases of innovation process. In the front-end phase, the managers emphasized the importance getting to know the team members, and creating a common vision and understanding, whereas the allocation and scheduling of resources was emphasized in the later development phases. The most pressing challenges varied between phases as well, with for example ideation challenges resulting from the diverse approaches of the heterogeneous team members beings a key diversity challenge in the front-end, and the integration of the offsite team members the most pressing diversity challenge in the late development phase. The largest amount of the activities was reported in the front-end phase supporting earlier studies suggesting that managerial activities tend to decline over time, and that managers tend to retain or increase team member autonomy as the project proceeds. Also, the study supports previous studies noting early phases of the project to be significant for establishing behavioural norms in order to avoid failed or mediocre projects. Further, the study revealed task-oriented managerial activities to be dominant among the interviewed managers as opposed to people-oriented activities. However, managerial approaches did not remain static throughout the project but the examples of project manager either strengthening or decreasing the initially dominant task- or people-oriented managerial approach occurred. Finally, differences between project managers with technical and nontechnical backgrounds could be found regarding for example decision-making, role and task division, and hands-on participation.

Download Zip 🔥 https://byltly.com/2xYiGh 🔥

The situatedness of the activities required to execute a project is essentialto an understanding of the project. Without it, the social and physicalenvironment is not combined and, therefore, offers less of an explanation. Theimportance of situatedness is recognised in what has been called ``The practiceturn'' within Social Sciences in general (Schatzki et al., 2001) and morerecently in relation to projects and project management (Lindahl, 2003; Engwalland Westling, 2004; Sapsed and Salter, 2004; Molloy and Whittington, 2006;Bechky, 2006; Blomquist et al., 2010). The practice approach assumes that, inorder to fully understand a phenomenon, recognition must be given to both thePraxis (the situated action, such as developing a Gantt chart), the Practices(the norms, traditions, rules etc. that are drawn upon while acting, such as acompany's template for a project plan) and the Practitioner (the individual whodoes something; for example, the engineer who develops the Gantt chart). Thesituatedness of the phenomenon can be explained when these three concepts meetin episodes of practice (Hendry and Seidl, 2003; Whittington, 2006). In general,the practice turn interests itself in the ``doings and sayings'' in projects.

In this study, to evaluate the training institution performance administered by the Semiconductor Institute in Taiwan, we first applied the PCA-ICA technique proposed by Kao et al. [5]. Then, we extended their technique by using Malmquist productivity indices (MPI) to measure the productivity growth of each DMU during multiple times. In other words, in this paper, we propose a hybrid solution of ICA-DEA and ICA-MPI to address the project management issues for the Semiconductor Institute. The proposed solution consists of three steps. First, we used ICA to convert the input data of the training institutions in 2009 into separate independent signals, called independent components (ICs). Then, these independent components enter the DEA approach as input variables to measure efficiency. The outcome of DEA, the slack analysis, is used to determine the optimal levels of input resources for each training institution and having training institutions adjust their resource allocation accordingly. Finally, MPI is used to determine whether the performance improvement of a training institution is caused by the suggestion of the slack analysis.

In the empirical study, we compared the outcomes of ICA-DEA and single DEA to demonstrate the influence of correlated input variables on the discrimination capability of DEA. Our analysis shows that ICA-DEA approach can avoid efficiency misjudgment. They are consistent with the conclusion made by Kao et al. [5]. (The ICA solution extracts the original source signal to a much greater extent than the PCA solution.) The analysis of ICA-MPI also indicates that the productivity of the most inefficient training institutions is apparently enhanced in 2010 if the suggestions of resource allocation from ICA-DEA were taken. According to our analysis, the Semiconductor Institute could consider reallocating budget by each training institution's efficiency in project execution and to withdraw those inefficient training institutions which show no improvement. be457b7860