ACTION RESEARCH: A MEANS OF IMPROVING THE PROBLEM SITUATION
4.4 Steps taken - First Iteration using Participatory Action Research .1 Participatory action research
Participatory action research is research involving all relevant parties in actively exploring together a situation that is experienced as problematic in order to formulate some action to change and improve it. This is done by critically reflecting on the historical, political, cultural, economic, geographic and other contexts that make sense of it (Wadsworth, 1998).
The first cycle of action research would be to obtain a better understanding of the problem situation and make some change(s) that would be evaluated. A participatory action research methodology would be used for this initial cycle. As stated in an earlier chapter, there are specific steps that need to be takeninorder for a successful action research intervention to take place. These steps include:
a) Stop current actions
b) Develop an understanding of the problem c) Decide on questions that need to be answered d) Plan the intervention
e) Carry out the intervention
f) Observe and analyse the outcome of the intervention
g) Reflect on the outcome in order to identify what needs to change or improve,
h) Apply changes, and
i) Plan the next cycle of intervention.
As part of step b) above it is important to also decide how the questions will be posed and who need to provide answers to the questions.
4.4.2 Current Problem Situation Description
The problem situation was identified soon after the project moved into the design phase of the project life cycle. This was as a result of some crucial deliverables that should have been completed in the planning phase but were still incomplete. Senior management, in keeping with the culture of driving milestones and key project deliverables, instructed the project manager to proceed with the sign-off of both the planning phase and these
documents in their current incomplete state and to deviatel a later version of these documents to the next phase. This would imply that the design phase could be said to have commenced on schedule. (This would show them in a good light to their
management by meeting committed targets). The documents were therefore signed-off (approved) with many incomplete sections. The result was that as these documents kept changing, the designs had to change as well, since they were based on these documents. In order to ensure that the prescribed process was correctly followed, each change to the documents necessitated that a change request be submitted as required by the project management process.
4.4.3 Action Research Steps.
Itwas mentioned in the paragraph on participatory action research that there are specific steps required when doing action research. Each of these steps will now be discussed.
4.4.3.1 Stop current actions.
Although it is suggested by Wadsworth (1998) that current actions be stopped, this was not feasible due to the tight project time constraints. Once the problem was identified, it was agreed that the project manager (who would also be the action researcher) would move towards finding an acceptable resolution as soon as possible. This implied the problem situation was also dynamic, because elements related to the problem were changing on a daily basis.
I A deviation is a project management process used in the organisation to allow a deliverable to be completed in a later phase to the oneinwhich it should be completed.
4.4.3.2 Develop an understanding of the problem.
Much of the understanding of the problem situation was done using a systems thinking paradigm as described in the previous chapter. The problem first came to light in the early design phase when the designers complained that some of the documents on which they had to base their designs had not yet been approved (signed-off), while other key documents were approved provisionally with numerous sections that were incomplete.
Although the project management process that was being used stated clearly that one should not move from one project phase to the next until all deliverables required in the previous phase had been completed (the espoused theory), the project management team was instructed to continue to do the design in parallel with the completing of these
documents. Itwas felt that by doing this, time could be made up, even though there was a risk of having to redo some of the work already completed. The designers were not happy with this decision and made this clear to their management. Their managers raised this issue with the project manager.
4.4.3.3 Decide on the questions that need to be answered
This aspect of the research is crucial in order to ascertain what the important issues were for each of the stakeholders. The first step was to identify the stakeholders who needed to be consulted. These were:
• The proj ect management team
• The designers
• The managers of the designers
• The quality assurance representative
• The business analysts
• The manager ofthe business analyst team.
To get a clearer understanding ofthe problem and possible solutions, it was considered necessary and vital to get an understanding from the stakeholders' perspective. Questions that needed to be asked would have to relate to:
• Why there was a resistance by the designers to doing the work in parallel (and especially to see ifthere were any reasons that were not being openly
communicated);
• What measures could be put in place to minimise the foreseen risks;
• Establish the reason why the documents that should have been completed by the end of the planning phase were not completed. This was not to apportion blame, but rather to identify the problems that were being experienced in order to estimate the effort required to complete the task;
• Find out whether any of the project managers had been in similar situations previously and what positive or negative lessons had been learnt;
• Obtain proposals on how to reduce the negative impact of the situation and what steps could be taken to make up lost time.
By asking the above questions and discussing the responses in an open and frank manner with the respondents, the researchers were in a better position to understand the
implications of any actions taken. The fact that there was an interest shown by managers on the project team also seemed to placate the other team members and demonstrate that there was a serious action in place to ease their plight.
4.4.3.4 Plan the intervention
At the next project meeting, the project team was told of the decision to continue with the design. The team was also advised that there would be continuing discussions with a number of affected parties in order to minimise the risk to the project of this decision. The team was further assured that the proj ect management structure was doing everything in their power to normalise the situation as soon as possible.Itwas also stressed that it was not the intention of the project management team to use this exercise to look for a
scapegoat, but rather to try to get the proj ect back on track as soon as possible and also to capture learnings from this for future proj ects.
4.4.3.5 Execute the intervention
Inthe subsequent discussions with the designers, it was discovered that a similar situation had occurred on other projects. The designers were therefore concerned that if the designs were completed later than scheduled, they would be held to blame for further project delays as had happened on the previous occasions. Inorder to mitigate the risk of rework and the delay that this would have on the overall project time lines, it was proposed that all subsequent changes to designs would have to be made following the prescribed change control process. Indoing this, it would be possible to track the number of changes that were made as well as establish the impact of each change. This proposal was supported by the managers of the IT design teams.
A further suggestion by some members of the design teams was that a lot of time could be saved if they were included in the ongoing sessions that the business analysts were having with the business representatives.
The manager of the business analysts felt that they were being blamed for the problem that the project was facing and spent much effort and energy in trying to motivate why they were unable to complete their activities in the planning phase. There was no proposal forthcoming from this manager other than to continue trying to get the relevant documents completed. According to the business analysts, most of the problems that they were
experiencing related to the fact that the required representatives from the Business were not always available when required (as they had their normal duties to perform and this project was not high on their list of priorities).
The reaction of each team without exception and as expected was in keeping with the culture of the organisation. The various teams realised that the project was headed for major slippage and were becoming defensive so that when the anticipated blame was apportioned, they could have adequate responses in order to protect themselves. The highly politicised nature of the organisation must again be stressed, especially in situations where projects start going wrong. Each business unit and team begins
demonstrating defensive behaviour. As stated by Chapman (2000), blame is particularly destructive of all sorts of work or task based relationship, because in an organization with a blaming culture, people will act to steer clear of the blame rather than do their activities in a positive sense. The culture also inhibits the free flow of information due to the
defensive behaviour, as the people do not want to be seen as the bearer of bad news, since this often results in them getting the blame. Furthermore, in such cultures the blame is frequently passed down the chain of command until someone ends up carrying the brunt of what was actually a complex problem situation with many causes. A consequence of being in a blaming organisation is that no learning takes place on how to avoid similar situations in future, as once the blame has been apportioned, it is assumed that the
"responsible" party will be punished in some way.
4.4.3.6 Analyse the Outcome of the Intervention
A report was produced that summarised the finding of the discussions that were held. The project management team considered the proposals and decided that with immediate
effect any change to work already done by the designers as a result of new information being provided in revised documents would only be allowed to proceed on the basis of a change request.
At this time it was noticed that the morale of the team did not seem to be lifted by the discussions and attention that management were giving to the situation. In fact, if anything, the morale seemed to deteriorate.
4.4.3.7 Applying the Change
The final step of the participative action research was to implement the change. The project manager issued a directive to all staff explaining the situation and requesting full compliance to the request for all rework to be managed by means of the change request process. Within the first week, 6 change requests were logged.
The team comprising the action researchers met in order to discuss the results of this first intervention. A further intervention was planned in order to establish why the progress of the designs was falling further behind schedule. Itwas decided that the second
intervention would make use of the soft systems methodology.
4.5 Second Iteration of the Action Research: Using Soft Systems Methodology