managing complex projects and programs (heaslip: managing complex projects and programs) || index
Post on 13-Apr-2017
215 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
299
INDEX
Ackoff, Russell, 136Archeology, organizational, 134
Background documents, 83–87, 105, 116, 219
Burning platform, 225–226
Centaur:building a, 148–153,
218–219, 236of excellence, 152programmaticist(s) as 147–148
Clinical study outputs versus outcomes, 20, 202
Coffee house project, 3–4Committee(s):
cross-functional, 14–19, 93, 105, 108, 116–117
governing agility of, 89–92business 117–121, 287capabilities, 92–94capacity, 83, 91, 102, 228decisions, 85, 107–108,
189–192delegation of responsibilities,
139–140, 234–235, 241effi ciency, 86–92integration role, 272, 281limitations, 81–83meetings, 87members, 83, 86, 90, 114–115oversight of programs,
204–209
oversight of projects, 14, 77–83, 202–204
primary, 98, 105, 127roles and responsibilities
30, 64, 77–82, 88, 94–95, 115–116, 163–164, 196–209, 223, 227, 272
secondary, 98, 100–105, 118, 293
specialty, 95, 123, 130–134, 139
review benefi ts of, 98, 101–102business, 117–121governance by, 107mixed function, 116–117operational, 102–103portfolio, 117resource, 117secondary, 98, 100–105,
293specialty, 123, 131strategic, 103technical, 103unintended consequences,
105–109, 111, 119–121, 133–134
Complex adaptive system(s), 159–169, 198, 211, 220, 255–256, 275, 283
Complexity:directional. See Stakeholderenvironmental
defi nition, 50, 287
Managing Complex Projects and Programs: How to Improve
Leadership of Complex Initiatives Using a Third-Generation
Approach by Richard J. Heaslip, PhDCopyright © 2014 Richard J. Heaslip. All rights reservedPublished by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey
300 INDEX
Complexity (continued )management of, 50–57,
151–152, 196–199, 204, 223, 272–273
mystery, misery, and mastery, 57operational
defi nition, 44, 289management of, 44–45,
141–148, 151–152, 184, 196, 198, 204, 209, 231–232, 251, 257, 271
organizational defi nition, 52, 290management of, 52–53,
141–144, 147, 279outcome
defi nition, 46, 290management of, 46–47, 141,
144–149, 151–152, 168, 179, 192–193, 196, 227, 229, 251, 263–268
programmatic, 41, 142–148, 292, 296–297
Rubik’s Cube, 57–59stakeholder, 48–49
defi nition of, 48, 293management of, 48–49, 196,
198, 204, 219Complexity leadership theory,
159–164, 167–168, 172, 183, 266
Credo(s), 17, 30, 39–41, 141, 292Crown vetch, 94–95
Enabling conditions, 78, 82, 287Enterprise-resource and project
management (ERPM) systems, 111
Exasperados:complexity management,
71, 162
defi nition of, 35, 288perspectives of, 35–40, 53
First-generation programmatics. See Programmatics, fi rst generation
First-generation programmatic systems. See Programmatics, fi rst generation
Five-complexities framework: defi nition of, 42–43, 288reactions to, 53–55use(s) 55
Gantt charts, 17, 45Guide to the Project Management
Body of Knowledge (PMBOK), 183
Handey, Jack, 34
Industrial Age, 13, 16–17, 64, 74, 100–101, 124, 200, 212, 231
Inclusivist approach (or perspective), 68–70, 74, 144–148, 231–232, 289
Inclusivist(s), 68–75, 145–148, 162, 231–232, 251–252, 264–268
Leadership:administrative, 161–164adaptive, 161–169, 171–181,
189, 191, 196–198, 201, 203–212, 217–220, 227, 234, 249, 256, 274
behaviors, 73–74, 223, 252–269, 278
challenges, 264–268
INDEX 301
competency research, 260–264, 297
enabling, 161–166, 196–198, 201, 203–212, 219–220, 234, 274
operational, 163–167, 173, 196–198, 201, 203–212, 217–220, 234, 274
persona(s), 250–251programmatic, 152, 173, 193,
247, 249, 252, 256–258, 266–269, 282
project and program, 4–6, 173–181, 250, 297
responsibilities, 19shared, 152, 220 specialists, 280–281style(s), 22, 74, 188, 212,
218, 248command-and-control 22,
25, 71, 173, 179, 217, 237, 266
learn-and-adapt 22, 25, 173, 179, 217, 237, 266
system, 9, 167, 196, 201–202, 268–269
Line function(s):advantages of, 13–17executive(s) (leaders) opinions,
14, 73, 79–80, 100–137, 144, 241–242
subgroups, 100–101
Managing Successful Programmes, 176–177
Operational Integrator. See Operational savant, integrator role
Operational savant, 141–143, 147–148, 151–152, 184,
186, 193, 195, 218–220, 231, 238, 252–253, 257, 274, 276, 278
integrator role, 142–143, 166–167, 219–221, 265, 272–273, 281
Operationalist approach (or perspective), 66–67, 70–75, 140–145, 231–232, 252, 290
Operationalist(s), 66–67, 70–75, 140–145, 231–233, 250–252, 264–267, 278
Organization(s): downsizing, 137–139growth, 99–100, 110, 114, 137breakdown structure(s),
101, 212Outcome sage, 144–148, 151–152,
167–168, 171, 183, 186, 191, 193, 195, 218–221, 228–231, 235, 238–239, 244, 252, 253, 257, 263, 274, 278
integrator role, 167, 169, 219–221, 256, 265, 275, 281
Oversight model(s) or system(s):fully empowered, 232,
258, 289fully governed, 77–95, 144, 159,
166, 191, 226, 231–232, 258, 288–289
adaptations of, 97–135multi-party, 107, 117,
160, 230operationally empowered, 232,
258, 289–290three-party. See also
Programmatics, third generation
302 INDEX
Oversight model(s) or system(s) (continued )
benefi ts of, 150–151, 158, 167, 195, 198–199, 213, 219, 222–225, 229, 246
challenges, 229–244, 264–268choosing, 226–229, 276–282defi ning, 148–153, 197–202managing projects and (sub)
programs, 203–213two-party. See also
Programmatics, fi rst generation, and Programmatics, second generation
adaptations of, 97–135, 140, 148, 229–235
challenges, 97–135, 150–151choosing, 226–229, 275–276limitations of, 81–83, 164, 167traditional, 77–95, 144,
200–206, 212
PERT chart, 17, 45Phase gate approaches, 25–26PMO (project or program
management offi ce), 111, 213, 245
Product manager, 189Program(s):
benefi ts of distinguishing from projects, 213–217
defi nition(s), 128–129, 174–180, 185–192, 214, 290–291, 296
leadership, xii–xv, xix, 3–8, 173, 193, 221, 247–260
outputs and outcomes, 7, 18–22, 25–40, 59, 89–91, 103, 129, 185–192, 202, 207, 210
managing, 43–47, 53–55, 66, 72, 145
sponsorship of subprograms, 209–212
Program manager(s). See also outcome sage
autonomy and authority, 142, 144, 203, 230–235, 278
assigning, 235–240defi nition, 182, 291reporting relationships,
240–244responsibilities, 146–149,
171–174, 182–186, 195–213
titles, 38, 146, 185–186, 233, 265
Program management: behaviors, 143, 251–260benefi ts of distinguishing from
project management, 217–223
competency research, 260–264defi nition, 180–181, 291, 296departments, 244–246reporting relationships,
240–244standards, 45, 49–50, 53, 65, 69,
174–177, 180–182, 192, 248, 275, 280, 295
Program management offi ce. See PMO
Program oversight model. See Oversight model
Programmatic science:defi nition 9–10, 53, 181,
184, 291departments of, 174, 241,
244–246maturity in, 229–230
INDEX 303
Programmaticist(s). See also Program Manager and Project manager
autonomy and authority, 230–235
credo, 40–41, 141, 198, 292defi nition of, 38, 292organizational athletes, 36roles and responsibilities
Inclusivist(s), 68–69, 70, 145–150, 231–233, 250–252, 264–268, 278
Operationalist(s), 66–67, 70, 142–144, 231–233, 250–252, 264–267, 278
re-examining, 140–148signifi cance of differences,
72–75Traditionalist(s), 63–66, 70,
163, 231–233, 250–253, 264, 267–268, 278
titles, 38, 146, 185–186, 233, 265Programmatic approach. See
Programmatics Programmatics:
defi nition, 10, 292fi rst-generation
application of, 30–32, 39, 197, 295
approach, 17–19, 45, 75–80, 153, 203, 218, 252
defi nition, 18–19, 288 second-generation
application of, 29–33, 47–49, 197, 295
approach(es), 26–29, 37, 146, 153, 158
defi nition, 22–23, 293 Exasperado reactions,
35–37, 40
third-generationapplication of, 271–275 approach, 153, 197–213, 246assessing value of, 275–279benefi ts, 213–224, 229choosing, 226–229, 276–282defi nition of, 197–200,
231, 294evolution to, 273–275introducing, 195–197implementing, 225–226,
229–244roles and responsibilities,
200–209, 230–235, 242–243, 256
twelve key questions, 275–279
Project(s): benefi ts of distinguishing from
programs, 213–217creation, 16daughter, 123–129, 205, 209,
211unintended consequences,
126–130defi nitions, 15, 184, 214,
292, 296infrastructure, 111, 123–130
benefi ts of, 123–126unintended consequences of,
126–130leadership, xii–xv, xix, 3–8,
146–152, 184, 227, 233–234, 246–260
number, impact of, 111–115outputs and outcomes, 7, 18–22,
25–40, 59, 89–91, 103, 129, 185–192, 202, 207, 210
managing, 43–47, 53–55, 66, 72
304 INDEX
Project(s) (continued )parent, 85, 123–124, 127–128,
210–211phases, 17, 26, 132,
139–140, 205–208, 277prioritization, 22, 78, 82, 103,
108, 112–118, 271team
agility, 75, 89composition, 78formation, 15–20high-performance, 68
Project manager(s). See also operational savant
assigning, 235–240autonomy and authority, 142,
144, 203, 230–235, 278defi nition, 184, 293 responsibilities, 144, 149,
184–186, 195–213, 272role as a conductor, 125title(s), 15, 38, 146, 185–186,
233, 265Project management:
agile, 26–27, 29, 31, 33, 37 beginnings, 13–16benefi ts of distinguishing from
program management, 217–223
complex, 27, 29, 31, 37credo, 17, 30, 39–41, 141defi nition, 184–192, 292, 296departments, 244–246exasperation of, 6–9 exhilaration of, 4–5extreme, 28–29, 37identity crisis, 31, 35–36, 70, 73,
146, 183, 186, 209introduction of, 15processes, 17–19
standards, 45, 49–50, 53, 65, 69, 174–177, 180–183, 192, 248, 280, 295
vending machine analogy, 10Project Management Institute 58,
128, 175, 180, 183Project management offi ce. See
PMOProject oversight model. See
Oversight model
Resource(s): allocation, 44, 50, 67, 79, 82,
100, 111–114, 126, 133, 138, 140, 203
competition for, 111–114estimates, 113review committees, 117–120,
163, 203, 205, 207, 271
Secondary governance committee(s). See Committee(s), governing, secondary
Secondary review committee(s). See Committee(s), review, secondary
Second-generation programmatics. See Programmatics, second generation
Second -generation programmatic systems. See Programmatics, second generation
Stakeholder engagement and management, 47–49, 58
Subprograms, 128, 179–182, 208–212, 217
Super-leaders, 281
INDEX 305
Traditionalist approach (or perspective), 63–66, 69–75, 88, 101, 231–232, 252–253, 294
Traditionalist(s), 70–75, 231–233, 250–252, 264, 267–268, 278
Uncertainty:environmental
defi nition of, 49–50, 288signifi cance of, 50
managing, 43–52, 77–78, 138–146, 151, 157, 168, 179, 184, 192–193, 196–199, 204, 209, 218, 227–231, 237, 244, 248, 251, 253, 257
operational defi nition of, 43, 289
signifi cance of, 43–44, 141, 184, 196
organizationaldefi nition of, 51, 290signifi cance of, 51–52
outcomedefi nition of, 45, 290signifi cance of, 46, 168,
178–179, 193, 196, 216stakeholder
defi nition of, 47–48, 293–294
signifi cance of, 48University of Pennsylvania,
xv, xix
VosSavant, Marilyn, 33
Work breakdown structure(s), 125–126
top related