CHAPTER 7

Study Conclusions

Chapter 7 Introduction

This chapter present our conclusions for the study. This chapter comprises a section that identifies skills gaps from the current PMI competency framework (PMI, 2007) and suggests how the identified gaps may be bridged. We then discuss and present our assessment of emerging trends in RBP and what we claim may be a way forward. We then discuss what implications this presents for education and skills development. The final section summarizes this chapter and the book.

Mind the Gap! Identifying and Bridging KSAE Gaps

The PMI competency framework (PMI, 2007) is understandably closely linked to the PMBOK® Guide (PMI, 2013). However, it still focuses overwhelmingly on the assumption that PM is predominantly a process activity. PM competency is validated using documentation with an emphasis on validity being demonstrated by mechanistic and highly “scientifically proven” evidence. The positivist paradigm is evident throughout the framework. This validation process is dominated by the need for documentary evidence and places “feeling” and “sense” at a nonrecognized level; as if feelings and sense are somehow invalid. There may be some hints of uneasy acceptance that feelings may offer limited credence, but the institution of PM thought has been largely dominated by a rational worldview that is highly deterministic in essence (Bredillet, 2013). It is only recently that this rationalist paradigm has been widely challenged and alternatives have been more generally explored and accepted by PM thought leaders (Bredillet, 2008; Hodgson & Cicmil, 2006; Söderlund, 2004; Winter et al., 2006).

However, PMI has more recently supported PM knowledge creation and the flow of ideas from the disaster recovery and project aid industry sectors in which culture-sensitivity, sensemaking, and empathic characteristics are more highly regarded and considered than in the PM community (Steinfort, 2010). The gap, therefore, in identifying the KSAE needed by project managers who lead the delivery of complex projects is not so much one of managing technical or administrative complexity, but rather in coping with high levels of uncertainty, ambiguity, and even chaos.

The PMI competency framework has not adequately caught up with an emerging emphasis on projects being initiated for non-commercial reasons to reflect emerging and exciting directions of PM that are responding to greater identification with 3BL benefits. The disaster recovery PM sector is one example of this (Ika, Diallo, & Thuillier, 2010; 2012; Steinfort, 2010).

A number of the KSAE's that we have identified, for example in Table 6 for project and program alliances, are either not mentioned in the PMI competency framework (PMI, 2007) or are given scant attention. The impression that the PMI competency framework gave us (as authors of this book) is that personal competencies are considered in the framework but they are discussed as being generic and universally applicable. For example, the PMI Framework Unit of competency 6.0 Communicating has described as one of its components “6.1 Actively listens, understands, and responds to stakeholders.” It suggests as valid evidence that demonstrates this competence as including survey results, documented observations from communication and feedback on empathy (PMI, 2007, p. 26). This is, of course, justified but to communicate for what purpose? In Chapter 4, Table 5, we outlined PM expertise based on work undertaken by Dreyfus and Dreyfus (2005) and Cicmil (2003), and we highlighted in that table the drivers of action by experts and virtuosos. It would be unlikely that an expert of virtuoso PM would painstakingly document evidence such as this before making decisions, because they are more likely to intuitively respond by making a decision without understanding exactly how they came to that decision. Similarly in the discussion on the Cynefin framework (Kurtz & Snowden, 2003; Snowden, 2002) in Chapter 3, and in particular with reference to our Figure 11, it can be appreciated that much decision-making and action-taking by highly skilled project managers is done intuitively, and so documenting evidence to support validating that level of expertise seems both counterproductive and even dangerous. Bredillet (Bredillet, 2013; Bredillet, Conboy, Davidson, & Walker, 2013) observes that practitioners respond in an internal and often difficult to comprehend manner. Books such as the PMI competency framework (PMI, 2007) and this book are necessarily limited because it is so difficult to document feelings, senses, and intangible knowledge. Presentation of research findings in this book should increase our understanding of PM and the KSAE that support excellence, rather than be another prescriptive framework to be slavishly adopted.

We highlighted in Chapter 4 in the Competency Classification section and PMI Competency Framework subsection, that the PMI Framework treats leading, more briefly and in a coarser-grained manner than the authentic leadership characteristics and CMM descriptors presented in the AAA study extract (Walker and Lloyd-Walker, 2011a) illustrated in Table 6. The present gap in the PMI Framework content that we can identify relates to the emphasis on 3BL outcomes and the building and maintenance of relationships that support trust and commitment in an RBP context. We do not suggest that all PM attention should now be shifted toward RBP, but we do identify a lack of focus on that form of project delivery and point to very large scale infrastructure project and program delivery in Australasia in particular but also in the U.K., Finland, and the Netherlands that require KSAE that go beyond that which is catalogued in the PMI Competency Framework.

Additional skill sets and attributes that are required for a PA and in other similar RBP forms extend well beyond what is expected of project manager in a BAU setting. It became evident from the data collected in the AAA study, as well as in this study, that a culture of cooperation, collaboration, innovation through cross-team learning, and best-for-project focus drives the need for greater relational management skills, attributes, and experiences. The data suggests that this is evidenced by a high level focus on collaboration, transparency, accountability, engendering an open culture of knowledge sharing, and joint risk/reward absorption, with an emphasis on trust, initiative, breakthrough innovation to achieve outstanding project outcomes, and a set of outcomes that are well beyond the iron triangle of performance. Skills and attributes include greater emphasis on people-management and leadership skills, facilitating a learning environment for innovation to flourish, integrity and authenticity in leadership to allow trust and commitment to flourish, and for governance to rely more on transformational rather than transactional leadership.

The relational KSAEs presented in summary in Chapter 6 Table 17 provide a useful indication of the identified gap in the PMI Competency Framework and helps answer RQ4—how may identified (KSAE) gaps be bridged? Many of these skills—access to knowledge, development of attributes, and acquisition of experience—cannot be obtained through schooling, education providers in a classroom setting, or online training. We suggest that these may be best addressed through greater focus on career development and access to mentoring and coaching opportunities. Specifically, we suggest that higher skill levels require concentrated learning that can be delivered through simulations via workshops or hypothetical case studies that involve an action-learning cycle of planning, acting, reviewing, reflecting, or perhaps reflecting, planning, and then acting, reviewing, and further reflection in a cycle. Mentoring and coaching also has its place. It is necessary for a supportive community of advanced project managers to be established to engage in mentoring, coaching, and knowledge exchange in a community of practice.

We have adapted our conclusions from our work for the AAA study (Walker & Lloyd-Walker, 2011a) in light of the extensive additional research undertaken on the research reported upon here in this study over 2012–2013 as follows.

To summarize the general thrust of our investigations, we can see potential for:

• Closer engagement between project managers and their responsible HRM departments to help identify what they should be doing and what that organization may do to support the project managers career and KSAE development;
• Changes in understanding from traditional HRM practices to practices that better align with temporary organizations composed of multiple firms that collaborate as a single project team;
• Continued use of formal courses and workshops run by education and training providers that are targeted at higher-order relational KSAEs;
• Use of psychometric evaluation tools for project managers to gain a better understanding of their traits, strengths, and weakness in various areas, and for highlighting gaps that may be filled in developing their career paths;
• Use of universities and short-course trainer providers for specific learning that lends itself to a structured approach in enhancing project managers’ business and relational KSAEs;
• Closer interaction with professional bodies such as PMI, IPMA, etc., as well as accessing knowledge via their conferences and professional development resources, to allow project managers access to leading-edge research results;
• Developing reflective learning and action learning based protocols for project managers to be able to develop their own careers (including the possibility of masters or PhDs for those willing make long-term learning commitments), and to learn from, and gain better value from, their experience;
• Simulations, hypotheticals, problem-solving interactive workshops, and repositories of difficult case studies on ethical or wicked problem dilemmas typically faced by AMs and;
• Developing a network of mentors and coaches and linking them to a web-based portal that could be dedicated to KSAE enhancement and for this portal to be social networking communities of practice.

Emerging Trends, the Way Forward

The world of project and program management is rapidly changing. We have already discussed changes in mind sets and perspectives of where PM is heading. Readers may also wish to follow up on some very recent papers that show how PM education has evolved. The paper by Bredillet et al. (2013), for example, traces a narrative for Australia that provides a history that is comparable to many other developed countries. The importance of being a reflective practitioner, being able to think deeply and reflect on not just a series of bullet-point lessons learned, but to understand context and changes in context from one situation to another so that lessons learned are used for adaptation and not merely for adoption, is a vital characteristic of KSAE development. Bredillet (2013) suggested that a practitioner who was reflective and reflexive could be termed a PraXitioner. Bredillet's (2013) concept of the PraXitioner is vital to understanding emerging PM trends, and therefore demands placed on the KSAEs that project managers will be expected to have, particularly at the high end of their professional maturity. A PraXitioner truly reflects upon context, pragmatic considerations about means, routines, behaviors, and what is required as a foundation for effective practice. We suggest that in designing a procurement choice to deliver a specific benefit and need that a praXitioner would be able to make sense of our Figure 27. An RBP Wittgenstein's Idea of Family, together with Appendix 2 and Table 6. Three Experiences and Seven Characteristics/Attributes Required of AMs (Source: Walker and Lloyd-Walker, 2011a, p. 12–15) to adapt and customize these guideline features for an appropriate procurement and delivery model that can function within the assumed context.

We already know that project characteristics vary with each industry sector, delivery level configuration, level of complexity, and a host of contextual aspects that we discussed in Chapter 2. We know that project outcomes are steadily moving in emphasis from delivering a product to delivering a service that generates benefit. This trend has been taking us steadily, in terms of the Figure 11. A Johari-Oriented Cynefin Typology of Project Awareness, from Quadrant 1, highly ordered projects, toward Quadrant 4, highly chaotic projects, while most project currently lie in Quadrant 3, complex and somewhat unordered. Our focus on alliance projects in this study is justified because trends in project delivery demands (and in particular the vast need for new and renewed infrastructure projects in our developing global economy), and it was by investigating KSAEs at that project complexity level that enabled us to identify gaps in current PM competencies and to offer guidelines to bridge that gap.

Implications for PM Education and Skills

What does this study and our presented research results imply for the PM discipline and for the vast industry of training and developing project managers and their teams? We can offer some suggestions based on our reflection of the work reported upon here, on the insights of the many highly professional SMEs that we have spoken to, and the views expressed but not yet published by academic colleagues that have generously given us their time to be interviewed about interesting aspects about PM and its KSAEs needed to perform successfully in the emerging context. We also benefited from extensive feedback from our two workshops in the U.K. when we presented preliminary results from our study, and from subsequent comments received from SMEs and other academics on draft versions of this book that we distributed freely as each was written.

One cluster of feedback comments supported our Table 6 and many commented that the identified soft skills were required in BAU as well as the RBP forms of project. We agree, but the models and frameworks we present in Table 6, Figure 25, Figure 27 and in Appendix 2, stress that it is a matter of degree and shaping. The characteristics and quality of these aids also need to be used within context. For example, in Table 6 we highlight several soft skills such as reflectiveness and spirit which can be applied more languidly if time permits in highly ordered BAU projects, but in a situation of chaos they may be employed in short sharp bursts to first act on a hunch (intuition) then rapidly reflect upon emerging consequences and to have the spirit to challenge one's own assumptions and move into an “act, sense, respond” sequence as illustrated in Figure 11 to cope with a chaotic or highly disordered project context. We welcome a praXitioner's judgment on the extent and manner in which our frameworks and models can be effectively applied to be suited to the project context.

Implications for the Project Owner (PO) and POR Education and Skills Development

Another cluster of feedback comments related to whole-of-team view of project delivery. The Project Manager Competency Development Framework (PMI, 2007), as with many other guides no doubt, omit to consider the project owner or the POR and the KSAEs that they need to effectively engage in more complex forms of project delivery. Our study did not specifically address this interesting cluster of research questions—what KSAEs do PORs have and what KSAEs do they need to optimize project outcomes? We interviewed several SMEs who had fulfilled the role of POR, but we did not focus on questions relating to the role of the POR or PO. This opens up possibilities for further research work to answer those questions. In the meantime, we are left with the possibility that some, if not many, project owners and PORs lack technical and PM-based KSAE to be able to effectively discuss options related to the project brief and then later to judge performance levels. For that group of individuals, an effective form of liaison training and development would be necessary. A PO or POR having the same KSAE as a professional project manager would be ideal, because that would enable more complete understanding and perspective taking ability to occur, which should facilitate a more effective exploration of project design and delivery options. This may not be feasible for many organizations, and so facilitating a liaison person with those KSAE could be a viable alternative.

Chapter 4 Figure 21 illustrates KSAEs on an alliance manager taken from our study of AM excellence in the AAA study (Walker and Lloyd-Walker, 2011a). Two skill groups that are generally not seen in the PM world are highlighted there. These are business solutions skills and 3BL and collaborative values skills. A PO or POR could well have high level business solution KSAE's but may not have (if mainly coming from a commercial background) sufficient social and environmental 3BL KSAEs. Bridging that gap could be accomplished through a study program designed more generally to grasp the basics and foundational knowledge and concepts, and be supplemented with advanced level training, coaching, or mentoring.

We cite here P38 who provided an illuminating comment about his experience of being on a number of alliance ALTs. It illustrates how the availability of the most senior managers to be engaged in alliances has become stretched with the increasing number of alliances in the rail infrastructure sector.

“We had the chief operating officer from [Participant A] or [Participant B] at the time on it, we had a senior guy from [Participant C] on it, the rail manager and so that was my first one and so there you had senior people from organizations and this is, I think, largely what the ALT is good for is accessing back into their business and making a difference. Consistently, every ALT since then has been watered down to the point where you don't have necessarily very senior people or not consistently senior on the ALT and therefore you're just getting a business as usual response because they have to then go back and get approval to do things and getting approval from putting it in the context that they've brought a business, so you don't get what I call special treatment and therefore without the likes of [Project X], we wouldn't have been able to build that without the attention and special treatment, especially from the rail operator. The priority that we got given because the senior by, I think a lot of that's been lost now, so you're not therefore getting a significantly innovative solution”.

We can see that as the number and scale of projects delivered move toward the need for a 3^rd to 4^th order of collaboration, there may be a crisis in KSAE shortage for POs and their PORs. This may be met and accommodated by massive upskilling (which we would expect to be a several-decades program) or greater reliance on project management teams. P38's quote was about the senior leaders and in particular the PORs, being able to make authoritative stable and quick decisions within their home organization to facilitate various demanding aspects of the project. This kind of authority would be very difficult to delegate to a project manager from outside the POR's home organization.

Implications for Project Managers and their Team Members’ Education and Skills Development

Regardless of whether the KSAE gaps that we have identified are bridged for project managers and their team participants, or for the project owner and/or POR, the need for technical, project management, business solution, and relational KSAEs is manifest in today's world of increasing complexity and wider systemic 3BL demands. What becomes apparent is that in moving beyond the baseline technical and PM KSAE required for a PMI registered practitioner, and similar qualifications for the IPMA, we see an increasing need for project managers to have business solution and relational KSAE. By business, we refer to accomplishing organizational aims and not for the term business being constrained to a commercial focus. The business of natural disaster recovery projects is to provide or facilitate the reinstatement of a resilient community and its supporting facilities. It is not about replacing what was there with a replica. That type of project requires a great deal of stakeholder engagement to work out what the program of work should entail (Steinfort & Walker, 2011).

Clearly, the implication for PM teams’ upskilling for the KSAEs identified in this book is that much of the project delivery needs to be done in the workplace, using skilled and experienced coaches, mentors, and facilitators. We see an important role for universities. This is primarily at the foundational stage where graduate programs of study at graduate certificate, graduate diploma, and masters level delivers project management education and training, but there is evidence to support universities developing doctoral programs to help practitioners develop into praXtitioners (Bredillet et al., 2013; Walker, 2008;). University programs of study are quite long, usually involving studying part-time while working for several years at a masters level and between four to six years at doctoral level. This timeframe is not feasible for the demands of many PM practitioners and their organizations. This is where one-to-one or very small group mentoring and coaching may be a useful KSAE delivery approach. Learning methods should be problem-based and action-learning based to allow what is referred to as Mode 2 learning (MacLean, MacIntosh, & Grant, 2002; Sense, 2005) where experiential and reflective learning is applied to simulated or real experiences to enable individuals to be better prepared for workplace upskilling challenges.

Gathering sufficient quantity and quality of resources has severe implications on coping with the challenge to bridge identified KSAEs gap. Enabling sufficient people-resources presents one dimension, but also there is the demand for high quality learning support materials that includes learning content, tools, and technology as well as physical space for people to meet learn and reflect. Frequently, organizational learning repository resources are not adequately considered. This includes not only lessons-learned-but-forgot issues but also how knowledge and information can best be made available and how a culture of learning can be developed that has been discussed and debated over many years (von Krogh, 1998; von Krogh et al., 2000; Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002).

Chapter Summary

This chapter wraps up the book. We first identified and articulated what we see is the current gap in KSAE development of PM practitioners. We also highlighted the gap that exists for project owners and their representatives. We proceeded to identify implications for the PM profession, project owners as well as those of us who see ourselves as part of a community of project workers and participants.

Our study involved a significant literature review studying articles, books, government reports, and research study reports. We reread and reflected upon a number of doctoral dissertations in which we have been fortunate enough to have played the role of supervisor or examiner. We also interviewed 14 leading academics in this RBP area and 36 SME practitioners and gathered over 500 pages of transcripts from those interviews. This enabled us to analyze that data using a sensemaking approach and we were able to compare our findings from this study with several other studies that we have been engaged in. We presented draft findings in a validation through exposure process using conference presentations in Australia, the U.K., Iceland, the Netherlands, Ireland, and the U.S. to be able to get international comment and feedback. We also submitted several papers to peer-reviewed journals to gain feedback and to explain our findings within the academic community. We presented findings at two workshops in Oxford and London to an audience of highly experienced complex project and program delivery practitioners. We have taken every opportunity to discuss emerging findings with colleagues from numerous countries, and we found the process of explaining our research approach and our findings strongly crystalized the models and frameworks we have developed or refined from our previous research work in this area.

We present a list of publications accepted and published as late as 2013 in Appendix 1, Table 1. We have also provided details of our interview participants (though intentionally coded IA-nn for interviewed academic 01, 02 etc. and IP-nn for interviewed practitioner) in Appendix 1, Table 2. In Appendix 1, Table 3, we identify and present a summary of the complementary research that has also informed our reflection on the research approach, data, and findings.

Appendix 2 provides details of our findings on the Wittgenstein Family Resemblance model as applied to RBP forms. We present the model again in Figure 1 of Appendix 2, and we then present the Wittgenstein's Family Resemblance Elements for each of the four Figure 1 components with their sub-themes/themes, and a suggested course-grained measurement scale of Low and High for each element. This is followed by details of each element that explains in detail the nature of the subelement/theme as well as examples of high levels of thinking about each subelement/theme, high levels of KSAE, and illustrative quotes from the interview transcripts that support the framework.

We believe that the value that this book contributes to the PM literature is:

• A substantial discussion and presentation in Chapter 2 of PM theory that underpins the study and linked it within a project procurement context;
• A substantial discussion and presentation in Chapter 3 of business theory aspects of RBP that sets the study in context and underpins the study within a project procurement context;
• A substantial discussion and presentation in Chapter 4 of human behavior aspects of RBP that sets the study in context and underpins the study within a project procurement context;
• Table 6 that updates and presents findings from our AAA study of profiling Alliance Manager Excellence to present a model that feedback from practitioners was very enthusiastic to apply to both alliance managers and high-performing project managers working on complex projects;
• Table 9 that presents a current definition of RBP forms as understood in a set of countries in the world. This provides a significant attempt to explain the terms and how the approaches are applied globally;
• Figure 25 that provides a model for categorizing collaboration forms linked to RBP terms generally used globally, together with Table 10 that explains the degree of relationship intensity characteristics to supplement the understanding that readers can gain from Figure 25 and;
• Figure 27, the Wittgenstein's Idea of Family Resemblance model that identifies 16 “petals” or elements that have been grouped into platform foundational, behavioral factors and processes, routines, and means drivers of RBP forms. This, together with Table 11, Table 12, and Table 13, explain in detail what each element and subelement/theme means and how the element may be measured. This provides a visualization model that can be developed through a color-coded table (an example of this is presented in Table 14, with a sample analysis presented in Table 15), or a radar chart for any given RBP configuration, as illustrated in Figure 28. This facilitates better understanding of each element's characteristics, and by using the associated table in Appendix 2 for the element, KSAE and benchmark standards of considering how to best use that element's characteristics to deliver value through the project.

This contribution addresses the research aim to present a body of research work that helps people better understand the various emerging forms of RBP and how to identify what KSAE may be required for any particular RBP form.

This book has several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, we are basing our findings with a culture of accepting the validity of RBP as a means to deliver project value that includes financial gain as only one of several success factors. While we were researching and writing this book between 2012 and 2013, the scale and number of projects delivered using an alliance approach in Australia is declining. Interviewees explain this decline as follows:

• Being a response to state and commonwealth (federal) government changes, with political masters who are mainly concerned with cost and revenue and less enthusiastic about other project performance measures such as community, social capital, and projects as learning vehicles than the governments they replaced;
• A perceived “over-use” of alliances where the rationale for the need and extent of collaboration was not explicitly justified; and
• Some hint of high levels of fatigue by senior management about the commitment and energy required of alliances and the demands made for these projects’ ALTs.

Against that backdrop we are seeing increasing use of alliancing in countries such as the U.K., Finland, and the Netherlands and the evolution of the T5 Agreement as a highly collaborative model with high levels of supply-chain integration using common platforms. This RBP form is proving to be one that delivers high levels of value for highly complex projects. The forms of Framework Agreement in the U.K. are very close to program alliances in Australia, though one SME we interviewed felt that FAs seemed to involve less of a sink-or-swim-together mentality and may not gain as much commitment by participants as that of program alliances.

Clearly, this form of procurement has delivered projects with traditional success measures such as the final outturn cost and time while delivering exceptional quality and many other KRA deliverables than appears to be the case for traditionally procured projects, at least in the construction infrastructure sector.

We expect to see the RBP form continuing to evolve but remain as a viable project delivery strategy.