1990–2003 Hybrid
2.16 SYSTEMS THINKING
is passive, and very few problems go to the executive levels for resolution. Projects are managed informally and with minimal documentation and few meetings. This culture takes years to achieve and functions well during favorable and unfavorable economic conditions.
Noncooperative cultures are reflections of senior management’s inability to cooperate among themselves and with the workforce. Respect is nonexistent. These cultures are not as successful as a cooperative culture.
Competitive cultures can be healthy in the short term, especially if there is abundant work. Long-term effects are usually not favorable. In one instance, an electronics firm reg- ularly bid on projects that required the cooperation of three departments. Management then implemented the unhealthy decision of allowing each of the three departments to bid on every job. The two “losing” departments would be treated as subcontractors.
Management believed that this competitiveness was healthy. Unfortunately, the long- term results were disastrous. The three departments refused to talk to one another and stopped sharing information. In order to get the job done for the price quoted, the depart- ments began outsourcing small amounts of work rather than using the other departments that were more expensive. As more work was outsourced, layoffs occurred. Management then realized the disadvantages of the competitive culture it had fostered.
● Synthesis:The best solution in reaching the objective of the system is the result of the combination of analysis and trade-off phases.
Other terms essential to the systems approach are:
● Objective:The function of the system or the strategy that must be achieved.
● Requirement:A partial need to satisfy the objective.
● Alternative:One of the selected ways to implement and satisfy a requirement.
● Selection criteria:Performance factors used in evaluating the alternatives to select a preferable alternative.
● Constraint:An absolute factor that describes conditions that the alternatives must meet.
A common error by potential decision makers (those dissatisfied individuals with au- thority to act) who base their thinking solely on subjective experience, judgment, and in- tuition is that they fail to recognize the existence of alternatives. Subjective thinking is in- hibited or affected by personal bias.
Objective thinking, on the other hand, is a fundamental characteristic of the systems approach and is exhibited or characterized by emphasis on the tendency to view events, phenomena, and ideas as external and apart from self-consciousness. Objective thinking is unprejudiced.
The systems analysis process, as shown in Figure 2–29, begins with systematic ex- amination and comparison of those alternative actions that are related to the accomplish- ment of the desired objective. The alternatives are then compared on the basis of the re- source costs and the associated benefits. The loop is then completed using feedback to determine how compatible each alternative is with the objectives of the organization.
The above analysis can be arranged in steps:
● Input data to mental process
● Analyze data
● Predict outcomes
● Evaluate outcomes and compare alternatives
● Choose the best alternative
● Take action
● Measure results and compare them with predictions
The systems approach is most effective if individuals can be trained to be ready with alternative actions that directly tie in with the prediction of outcomes. The basic tool is the outcome array, which represents the matrix of all possible circumstances. This outcome ar- ray can be developed only if the decision maker thinks in terms of the wide scope of pos- sible outcomes. Outcome descriptions force the decision maker to spell out clearly just what he is trying to achieve (i.e., his objectives).
Systems thinking is vital for the success of a project. Project management systems ur- gently need new ways of strategically viewing, questioning, and analyzing project needs for alternative nontechnical and technical solutions. The ability to analyze the total project, rather than the individual parts, is essential for successful project management.
Systems Thinking 83
SYSTEM
T R A D E O F F
SELECTION CRITERIA • PERFORMANCE • COST/BENEFIT • RESPONSE TIME • POLICY ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE
CONSTRAINTS • LEGISLATIVE • FINANCIAL • TIMING • POLICY REQUIREMENT REQUIREMENT REQUIREMENT REQUIREMENT TRANS- LATIONANALYSIS
FEEDBACK TRADE-OFFSYNTHESIS
IO B J E C T V E FIGURE 2–29.The systems approach.
84
PROBLEMS
2–1 Can the organizational chart of a company be considered as a systems model? If so, what kind of systems model?
2–2 Do you think that someone could be a good systems manager but a poor project man- ager? What about the reverse situation? State any assumptions that you may have to make.
2–3 Can we consider R&D as a system? If so, under what circumstances?
2–4 For each of the following projects, state whether we are discussing an open, closed, or extended system:
a. A high-technology project b. New product R&D
c. An on-line computer system for a bank d. Construction of a chemical plant
e. Developing an in-house cost accounting reporting system
2–5 Can an entire organization be considered as a model? If so, what type?
2–6 Systems can be defined as a combination or interrelationship of subsystems. Does a project have subsystems?
2–7 If a system can, in fact, be broken down into subsystems, what problems can occur dur- ing integration?
2–8 How could suboptimization occur during systems thinking and analysis?
2–9 Would a cost-benefit analysis be easier or harder to perform in a traditional or project management organizational structure?
2–10 What impact could the product life cycle have on the selection of the project organiza- tional structure?
2–11 In the development of a system, what criteria should be used to determine where one phase begins and another ends and where overlap can occur?
2–12 Consider the following expression: “Damn the torpedoes: full-speed ahead.” Is it possi- ble that this military philosophy can be applied to project management and lead to project success?
Problems 85