Last edited: November 10, 2014

Introduction to Project Management

Introduction

The orga­ni­sa­ti­on of exhi­bi­ti­ons always takes the form of a pro­ject. Pro­ject mana­ge­ment the­re­fo­re plays a cen­tral role in the pro­cess. If the aim is to orga­ni­se an exhi­bi­ti­on well, a good basic under­stan­ding of pro­ject mana­ge­ment is impor­tant. In view of this an intro­duc­ti­on is inclu­ded below which pro­vi­des a broad over­view of the sub­ject. For a more in-depth under­stan­ding, plea­se refer to the many publi­ca­ti­ons avai­la­ble in this field.

What is Project Management?

The con­cept of mana­ge­ment can be defi­ned in dif­fe­rent ways. It is often descri­bed as:

the sys­te­ma­tic and inte­gral con­trol of pro­ces­ses“1

Wiki­pe­dia sums it up as:

one or more peo­p­le set­ting in moti­on the con­trol­led exe­cu­ti­on of acti­vi­ties aimed at achie­ving a pre­de­ter­mi­ned goal“2

Mana­ge­ment is used in a vari­e­ty of are­as, ran­ging from human resour­ce mana­ge­ment, to ope­ra­ti­ons mana­ge­ment, stra­te­gic mana­ge­ment, mar­ke­ting mana­ge­ment, finan­ci­al mana­ge­ment, ICT and resour­ces mana­ge­ment, chan­ge mana­ge­ment, qua­li­ty mana­ge­ment, infor­ma­ti­on mana­ge­ment and pro­ject mana­ge­ment. Pro­ject mana­ge­ment dif­fe­ren­ti­a­tes itself from gene­ral mana­ge­ment by its tem­po­ra­ry natu­re and the fact that the­re is a pre­de­ter­mi­ned goal. A con­cre­te result must also be achie­ved to which para­me­ters are given in terms of money, time and other resour­ces, such as man­po­wer. Pro­ject mana­ge­ment can the­re­fo­re also be defi­ned as:

the sys­te­ma­tic and con­trol­led stee­ring of a sin­gle result-orien­ta­ted pro­cess which must be exe­cu­ted within given para­me­ters of time, money and resour­ces, on the basis of pre-defi­ned objec­ti­ves.“3

The­re are cer­tain essen­ti­al ele­ments that deter­mi­ne whe­ther some­thing is a project:

  • The achie­ve­ment of a con­cre­te result;
  • A uni­que and one-off result;
  • A defi­na­ble start and end point;
  • An inter­nal (usu­al­ly, the mana­ge­ment of an orga­ni­sa­ti­on) or exter­nal client.

Pro­jects can take many forms from sim­ple ones such as orga­ni­s­ing a holi­day or a din­ner with friends, to extre­me­ly com­plex ones such as the buil­ding of a pas­sen­ger ship or the con­struc­ti­on a high speed ​​train. Pro­jects do not always need to have a mate­ri­al pro­duct as the out­co­me either. Wri­ting a poli­cy or doing research can also be con­duc­ted on a pro­ject basis. This model focu­ses on pro­jects in the field of spa­ti­al com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on, such as the esta­blish­ment of a flagship sto­re, the imple­men­ta­ti­on of a tra­de show stand, the orga­ni­sa­ti­on of a sci­en­ce cen­tre or a pavi­li­on at an inter­na­ti­o­nal exhi­bi­ti­on, as well as the esta­blish­ment of a per­ma­nent or tem­po­ra­ry exhi­bi­ti­on in the heri­ta­ge sector.

Pro­jects gener­al­ly flow from the work of a per­ma­nent orga­ni­sa­ti­on, such as a cul­tu­ral insti­tu­ti­on, a govern­ment orga­ni­sa­ti­on or a busi­ness. Through the run­ning of such an orga­ni­sa­ti­on needs can ari­se for uni­que or one-off pro­ducts like, for example, a cus­to­mer sur­vey, a fea­si­bi­li­ty stu­dy for a new loca­ti­on, the devel­op­ment of new pro­ducts, the con­struc­ti­on of a new buil­ding, a re-orga­ni­sa­ti­on, a new poli­cy, etc. In many set­tings uni­que or one-off pro­ducts form (a part of) their end pro­duct, for example in muse­um exhi­bi­ti­ons or designs for exhi­bi­ti­ons at a design agen­cy. Sin­ce pro­jects do not often form the core busi­ness of an insti­tu­ti­on or busi­ness and are an ano­ma­ly for them, much of the essen­ti­al know-how is lac­king. Many pro­jects are the­re­fo­re whol­ly or par­ti­al­ly car­ried out by exter­nal spe­ci­a­lists. When the pro­ject is com­ple­ted, the pro­duct returns to the exis­ting orga­ni­sa­ti­on. This is aimed at main­tai­ning the pro­duct, which is often of a rou­ti­ne natu­re and can be car­ried out accor­ding to esta­blis­hed procedures.

Control aspects

Abo­ve pro­ject mana­ge­ment is descri­bed as the sys­te­ma­tic and con­trol­led stee­ring of a sin­gle result-orien­ta­ted pro­cess which must be exe­cu­ted within given para­me­ters of time, money and resour­ces, on the basis of pre-defi­ned objectives.

In order for a pro­ject to be sys­te­ma­ti­cally stee­red and con­trol­led the fol­lo­wing five aspects must be con­trol­led in an inte­gra­ted and cohe­rent way: time, money, qua­li­ty, infor­ma­ti­on and organisation. 

Time

The aim is to deli­ver the pro­ject on time and this encom­pas­ses struc­tu­ring the pro­ject into pha­ses, the esta­blish­ment and moni­to­ring of plans and, whe­re neces­sa­ry, the making of inte­rim adjust­ments to the­se plans.

Money

This refers to:

  • The pre­pa­ra­ti­on of fore­casts for the costs to be incur­red: In the begin­ning of the pro­ject this is often based on gene­ral expe­rien­ce expres­sed in pri­ces per squa­re metre and rati­os. As the pro­ject beco­mes more solid, the­se fore­casts beco­me more pre­ci­se and detai­led, resul­ting in more and more con­cre­te cost estimates.
  • The cove­ring of the costs: This has to do with inco­me sour­ces like avai­la­ble bud­get, expec­ted reve­nues (e.g. from entran­ce fees at an exhi­bi­ti­on) and, if neces­sa­ry, from fund­rai­sing or other forms of financing.
  • The con­stant moni­to­ring of cost devel­op­ments, costs esti­ma­tes and bud­gets: The­se are check­ed against the (revi­sed) pro­ject bud­get and if appli­ca­ble against reve­nue from fund­rai­sing (bud­get control).

Quality

This means:

  • Asses­sing the qua­li­ty and ambi­ti­on of the pro­ject: Qua­li­ty refers to sub­stan­ti­ve and tech­ni­cal requi­re­ments and is a result of the avai­la­ble money, time and resour­ces (e.g. amount of man­po­wer and exper­ti­se). In deter­mi­ning the qua­li­ty of struc­tu­ral pro­jects such as exhi­bi­ti­ons, aspects of sustai­na­bi­li­ty can be invol­ved. The qua­li­ty requi­re­ments need to be rea­lis­tic. In prac­ti­ce it often turns out that a (much) too ambi­tious level is sought after for which the bud­get is alto­gether too low (wan­ting a Rolls Roy­ce for the pri­ce of a Volks­wa­gen), that the time is too short (wan­ting it done yes­ter­day) and/or the resour­ces are insuf­fi­cient (having only a group of volun­teers with litt­le expe­rien­ce and know­led­ge of the essen­ti­al pro­ject sub­jects). In exhi­bi­ti­on-making espe­ci­al­ly, the costs, time and essen­ti­al know-how requi­red to achie­ve a pro­fes­si­o­nal pro­duct are often unde­resti­ma­ted by clients. Having qua­li­ty requi­re­ments and ambi­ti­on levels that are too high at the start can often lead to the fai­lu­re of the pro­ject and frus­tra­ti­on amongst tho­se invol­ved. Depen­ding on the know­led­ge and expe­rien­ce of the client, it is worth set­ting rea­lis­tic qua­li­ty requi­re­ments and esta­blis­hing them through good con­sulta­ti­on bet­ween the client and the con­trac­tors. The exper­ti­se and expe­rien­ce of the con­trac­tors can be used in this way to come up with a fea­si­ble level of ambi­ti­on. Inci­den­tal­ly, “qua­li­ty” also has to do with achie­ving the goals set in advan­ce. An exhi­bi­ti­on that gets its objec­ti­ves from selec­ted tar­get groups has in that sen­se, a good level of quality.
  • The inte­rim chec­king of the qua­li­ty level: This is tested against the level that has been deter­mi­ned at the begin­ning of the pro­ject. It is recom­men­ded that the detai­led pro­ject plan – cal­l­ed the Pro­vi­si­o­nal Design in exhi­bi­ti­ons — ensu­res that it repre­sents the 100% solu­ti­on in terms of achie­ving both the pro­ject objec­ti­ves and the fea­si­ble qua­li­ty for that pro­ject. In prac­ti­ce, it often turns out that during the sub­se­quent exe­cu­ti­on and imple­men­ta­ti­on of the pro­ject various adjust­ments need to be made​​. In direct con­sulta­ti­on with the client, usu­al­ly in the con­text of “con­struc­ti­on” mee­tings, the­se adjust­ments can be dis­cus­sed and check­ed against the detai­led pro­ject plan. In gene­ral, adjust­ments lead to a reduc­ti­on in qua­li­ty. Expe­rien­ce shows that a pro­ject that gets 80% of the desi­red qua­li­ty is per­for­ming well. Qua­li­ty con­trol must also be rea­lis­tic. Adjust­ments should be pos­si­ble, pro­vi­ded they are not of such a natu­re that the who­le pro­ject or parts of it fall below the level whe­re it is no lon­ger cer­tain that the objec­ti­ves of the pro­ject will still be met.

Infor­mation

Infor­ma­ti­on mana­ge­ment is divi­ded into two parts. Inter­nal­ly and exter­nal­ly orien­ted infor­ma­ti­on control.

Internal Information Control

This is to ensu­re that eve­ry­o­ne invol­ved always gets the infor­ma­ti­on that is rele­vant at that time to car­ry out their con­tri­bu­ti­ons to the pro­ject. The inter­nal infor­ma­ti­on mana­ge­ment can take pla­ce in various ways such as:

  • The pro­duc­ti­on and dis­cus­si­on of reports: This main­ly con­cerns reports whe­re the results of the work and con­clu­si­ons from a pro­ject pha­se are recor­ded, the so-cal­l­ed ‘deci­si­on docu­ments’. Given the impor­tan­ce of the ‘deci­si­on docu­ments, it is essen­ti­al to record dis­cus­si­ons in reports.
  • Giving brie­fings: The­se may be given to exter­nals and/or team mem­bers on the tas­ks to be car­ried out by them.
  • Hol­ding regu­lar pro­ject and/or con­struc­ti­on mee­tings: In prac­ti­ce, a fre­quen­cy of once to a maxi­mum of twi­ce a month is rea­lis­tic during the pre­pa­ra­ti­on and design pha­ses of an exhi­bi­ti­on pro­ject. During the con­struc­ti­on pha­se, a hig­her fre­quen­cy is effec­ti­ve of at least 2 per month to some­ti­mes once a week (in the final stage).
  • The making of mee­ting reports with acti­on lists: For good infor­ma­ti­on mana­ge­ment it pro­ves effec­ti­ve when pro­ject team mem­bers make a brief cor­res­pon­den­ce report of dis­cus­si­ons they have with exter­nals which is then cir­cu­la­ted. Archi­ving records and mail cor­res­pon­den­ce in pro­ject docu­men­ta­ti­on is of vital impor­tan­ce here. In this con­text it is good to appoint a pro­ject secre­ta­ry who car­ries this out and is accoun­ta­ble for it. In order to set up pro­per pro­ject docu­men­ta­ti­on all docu­ments should con­tain a ver­si­on num­ber, the date and the name of the author.
  • Infor­mal cor­res­pon­den­ce via email and telep­ho­ne: Con­s­traint should be obser­ved with email cor­res­pon­den­ce. Often a ques­ti­on to a pro­ject asso­ci­a­te gets sent to all pro­ject mem­bers, who then in turn reply to eve­ry­o­ne. When this hap­pens in an uncon­trol­led way an infor­ma­ti­on over­load is cau­sed that is not only inef­fec­ti­ve, but often arou­ses irrita­ti­on too. With ram­pant email cor­res­pon­den­ce you often hear talk of ‘email-mania’. The idea that eve­ry­thing can be con­trol­led via an “email” is beco­ming out­da­ted. Email is an effi­cient tool for inter­nal com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on, but also has its limita­ti­ons, par­ti­cu­lar­ly in terms of the inter­pre­ta­ti­on of text (mis­com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on), and rela­ting to the time spent on it. A con­sulta­ti­on on a par­ti­cu­lar sub­ject can be com­mu­ni­ca­ted con­si­de­ra­bly more effec­ti­ve­ly in a pho­ne call or a short infor­mal 5 minu­tes mee­ting than in an email exchan­ge las­ting 30 minu­tes. The con­clu­si­ons can then be con­fir­med via an email. In short, a selec­ti­ve use of the various infor­mal forms of com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on is neces­sa­ry for good inter­nal communication.

Inter­nal infor­ma­ti­on pro­vi­si­on is often seen as a res­pon­si­bi­li­ty of the pro­ject mana­ger. Even though he has a coo­r­di­na­ting and super­vi­so­ry role in this, all team mem­bers have a res­pon­si­bi­li­ty for infor­ma­ti­on pro­vi­si­on. All the work the team mem­bers car­ry out and the con­sulta­ti­ons they have should be infor­med by the basic prin­ci­ple: who needs to know the results of this? In order to avoid the abo­ve-men­ti­o­ned email-mania this needs to be car­ried out in a very selec­ti­ve way.

External Information Management

This refers to the infor­ma­ti­on about the pro­ject and its pro­gres­si­on to third par­ties out­si­de of the pro­ject group and client. Often exter­nal infor­ma­ti­on mana­ge­ment is a task of the client. In exhi­bi­ti­ons this can form part of the gene­ral and/or the pro­ject-tar­ge­ted pro­mo­ti­on of the com­mis­si­o­ning insti­tu­ti­on or com­pa­ny. Moun­ting a pro­ject pro­mo­ti­on cam­paign right from the start fol­lo­wing the devel­op­ments of the pro­ject can con­tri­bu­te sig­ni­fi­cantly to its suc­cess. Fur­ther­mo­re such cam­paigns have been main­ly applied to lar­ger exhi­bi­ti­on pro­jects such as the refur­bish­ment of a museum.

Exter­nal infor­ma­ti­on con­trol can also be direc­ted at their own orga­ni­sa­ti­on or busi­ness. Pro­ject pro­gress reports may be inclu­ded in:

  • mee­tings of the board of the insti­tu­ti­on or company;
  • infor­ma­ti­on bul­le­tins for part­ners, such as friends of a muse­um, or a com­pa­ny’s customers;
  • com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons to staff, whe­ther or not as part of a regu­lar appe­a­ring newsletter.

For the con­duct of inter­nal and exter­nal infor­ma­ti­on pro­vi­si­on it is advi­sa­ble to set up an Infor­ma­ti­on Pro­to­col at the begin­ning of the pro­ject. Arran­ge­ments can be made herein about who will be infor­med about what and at what moment and which com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on chan­nels will be used as a preference.

Organisation Control

This aims to ensu­re that during the pro­ject it is always clear:

  • who are invol­ved in the project;
  • what their duties, res­pon­si­bi­li­ties and powers are;
  • what the deci­si­on-making struc­tu­re is?

Those involved in the Project

The Client

The client is ulti­ma­te­ly res­pon­si­ble for the pro­ject and has the task of taking final deci­si­ons con­cerning the pro­ject, encap­su­la­ted in pha­se results and final deli­ver­a­bles. A client can be either inter­nal, i.e. coming from within the orga­ni­sa­ti­on, or exter­nal. Usu­al­ly, the client  func­ti­ons as the direc­tor or head of a depart­ment, e.g. from the com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons depart­ment of a lar­ge com­pa­ny that wants to run a stand at a tra­de show. As an excep­ti­on to this is when the board of an insti­tu­te or foun­da­ti­on is the client,  for example in a muse­um run by volun­teers. In com­mer­ci­al con­texts the term cus­to­mer is also used.

It is high­ly impor­tant, espe­ci­al­ly when wor­king for an exter­nal client, to be very clear about who the actu­al client is. The per­son who has the first con­tact with the con­trac­tors and gives the pro­ject brie­fing, is often not the client, but the con­tact per­son who has been asked to arran­ge the­se things. As a con­trac­tor it is good to ask if you are unsu­re who the actu­al client is. In prac­ti­ce it is not always clear within the client’s orga­ni­sa­ti­on itself and must be sor­ted out. Uncer­tain­ty about the client can cau­se sig­ni­fi­cant delays in the pro­gress of the pro­ject, becau­se it is unclear who should make the final deci­si­ons. In extre­me cases it can even lead to the fai­lu­re of the pro­ject. Any­way, it pays not to think too lightly about the com­mis­si­o­ning body. If a pro­ject is mana­ged unpro­fes­si­o­nal­ly at this level, then this can lead to long delays and frus­tra­ti­on at making pro­gress. Com­mon pro­blems with com­mis­si­o­ning bodies are:

  • insuf­fi­cient know­led­ge of pro­ject mana­ge­ment and how pro­jects devel­op in pha­ses and should be managed:
  • unwil­ling­ness to take deci­si­ons or the post­po­ne­ment thereof;
  • returning to pre­vious decisions;
  • taking deci­si­ons on the basis of per­so­nal emo­ti­ons or by impo­sing deci­si­ons rather than on the basis of busi­ness con­si­de­ra­ti­ons con­nec­ted to the objec­ti­ves of the project.
The Project Leader[4 The extent to which tasks, responsibilities and powers are delegated to the management of a project is not always the same. The job title of the leader is somewhat linked to this. A guideline for the job titles can be as follows: project manager (large and complex projects, usually a management specialist), project leader (more mundane projects, strong emphasis on both the content and management aspects), project coordinator (primary competence to coordinate disciplines/activities; often is it someone from the middle of the team that takes this role). In practice, these names are often used interchangeably. For our purposes here, we have adopted the term of project leader.]

The pro­ject lea­der is res­pon­si­ble for the imple­men­ta­ti­on of the final out­co­me of the pro­ject in terms of objec­ti­ves and fixed qua­li­ty levels. To this end, the pro­ject leader:

  • mana­ges the pro­ject and pro­ject employees;
  • moni­tors the objec­ti­ves and any tar­get group orientation;
  • ensu­res the pha­se results are achieved;
  • plans and struc­tu­res the project;
  • is res­pon­si­ble for the pro­per con­trol and moni­to­ring of the five con­trol aspects through esta­blis­hing and moni­to­ring work plans, bud­gets, orga­ni­sa­ti­on charts for the pro­ject and any infor­ma­ti­on protocols.

Usu­al­ly the pro­ject lea­der directs the pro­ject team, is pre­sent at pro­ject mee­tings and main­tains con­tact with the client. The mana­ging and super­vi­si­on of third par­ties (sub­con­trac­tors, sup­pliers and ser­vi­ce pro­vi­ders), as well as exter­nal infor­ma­ti­on ser­vi­ces often falls under his/hers responsibilities.

Pro­ject lea­der­ship takes many forms depen­ding part­ly on not only the actu­al natu­re and sco­pe of the pro­ject, but also on the cul­tu­re of the insti­tu­ti­on in which the pro­ject takes pla­ce and the per­so­na­li­ty of the pro­ject lea­der. For lar­ge pro­jects, and also within lar­ger hier­ar­chi­cally orga­ni­sed insti­tu­ti­ons and busi­nes­ses, the sty­le will be more ‘diri­gis­te’ and busi­ness-like in which the over­all res­pon­si­bi­li­ty and thus the deci­si­on-making lies more direct­ly with the pro­ject lea­der. For smal­ler, more cre­a­ti­ve­ly orien­ted pro­jects such as exhi­bi­ti­ons, the mana­ge­ment sty­le is often of a more coo­r­di­na­ting and sti­mu­la­ting natu­re whe­re the pro­ject lea­der takes deci­si­ons based on cor­po­ra­te out­co­me-rela­ted rea­sons from the team, but whe­re neces­sa­ry also on their own res­pon­si­bi­li­ty. Cen­tral to this idea is to opti­mi­se the final pro­duct by always allo­wing spa­ce for the cre­a­ti­vi­ty, know­led­ge and expe­rien­ce of pro­fes­si­o­nals within clear frameworks.

The Project Team

Within a pro­fes­si­o­nal pro­ject, the pro­ject mem­bers are cho­sen on the basis of busi­ness con­si­de­ra­ti­ons, i.e. accor­ding to the essen­ti­al know-how nee­ded for the pro­ject. This can vary by pha­se or group of pha­ses. In the ear­ly pha­ses of exhi­bi­ti­on pro­jects con­tent-rela­ted and cre­a­ti­ve skills are main­ly desi­ra­ble. When the pro­ject plan is rea­dy, in the form of a ‘pro­vi­si­o­nal design’, and the exhi­bi­ti­on pro­ject is in more of an imple­men­ta­ti­on pha­se, more archi­tec­tu­ral and spe­ci­fic know-how is requi­red, for example for the pro­duc­ti­on of audio-visu­al pro­gram­mes and inter­ac­ti­ve exhi­bits. The pro­ject team is also often modi­fied and exten­ded in later phases.

In recent years the­re has been a ten­d­en­cy to invol­ve buil­ders and manu­fac­tu­rers from the start of the pro­ject, in an effort to anti­ci­pa­te the essen­ti­al know-how requi­red in later pha­ses. Alt­hough the­se spe­ci­a­lists do not have a direct role in the begin­ning pha­ses, it may be that through their know­led­ge and expe­rien­ce in the field of orga­ni­s­ing and rea­li­sing exhi­bi­ti­ons they make posi­ti­ve con­tri­bu­ti­ons to this first pha­se. This method also has the advan­ta­ge that it can quick­ly build a good team spi­rit and increa­ses effi­ci­en­cy as par­ties do not need to be inte­gra­ted at a later sta­ge. The dis­ad­van­ta­ge is of cour­se choosing par­ties at an ear­ly sta­ge who will only play an acti­ve role in a later phase.

With lar­ge exhi­bi­ti­ons pro­jects this way of wor­king leads to so-cal­l­ed con­sor­tia. Here you find a num­ber of com­pa­nies who are spe­ci­a­li­sed in dif­fe­rent are­as com­mit­ting them­sel­ves to ten­der for the pro­ject as a ser­vi­ce pro­vi­der. The­se are often alli­an­ces of com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on-/con­tent-orien­ted com­pa­nies with desig­ners and exhi­bi­ti­on con­struc­ti­on com­pa­nies. Some­ti­mes muse­o­lo­gi­cal and audio-visu­al spe­ci­a­lists are also a part of such consortia.

Final­ly, it should be not­ed that a team of renow­ned spe­ci­a­lists are not the most approp­ri­a­te team per se. The best result is achie­ved by a team of co-ope­ra­ting spe­ci­a­lists who under­stand their duties and roles within the team and res­pect tho­se of others. Pro­jects domi­na­ted by one spe­ci­a­list will ulti­ma­te­ly gain a more one-sided result, the­re­by only ful­fil­ling part of the objectives.

Tasks and Responsibilities

Fol­lo­wing on from deter­mi­ning tho­se invol­ved in the pro­ject is the essen­ti­al step of recor­ding their duties, res­pon­si­bi­li­ties and powers. The star­ting point here is that one does not acqui­re res­pon­si­bi­li­ties wit­hout the cor­res­pon­ding powers. A well-known example is the pro­ject mana­ger who is res­pon­si­ble for the pro­ject bud­get but does not have the autho­ri­ty to make chan­ges within the appro­ved total bud­get or to nego­ti­a­te par­ti­al bud­gets with third par­ties. The absen­ce of the­se powers ero­des not only his task as autho­ri­sing offi­cer, but also cre­a­tes an inef­fi­cient cour­se for the pro­ject becau­se eve­ry chan­ge must be sub­mit­ted to the client. If the bud­get is such that the client can­not or will not hand over bud­get res­pon­si­bi­li­ty enti­re­ly, it may be deci­ded to give the pro­ject lea­der a cer­tain amount in order to allow some power of deci­si­on-making. Also with regards to the hiring of third par­ties and the hiring of per­son­nel simi­lar arran­ge­ments can be made.

See­ing as the pro­ject lea­der has the cen­tral role in the pro­ject, the­re fol­lows below a sum­ma­ry of the most impor­tant powers that a pro­ject lea­der must have:

  • the power within agreed bud­get margins, plans and infor­ma­ti­on pro­to­cols to make chan­ges to time-sche­du­les, bud­gets and inter­nal infor­ma­ti­on provision;
  • the power within the appro­ved fra­me­work of the pro­ject to give assign­ments to the pro­ject staff and to nego­ti­a­te with con­trac­tors, ser­vi­ce pro­vi­ders and suppliers.

Giving an over­view of the powers that team mem­bers should have is less sim­ple. Given the dif­fe­ren­ces as to the con­tent of their duties, they should be deter­mi­ned on a case to case basis, depen­ding on the res­pon­si­bi­li­ties they have.

Decision-making structure

Con­nec­ted with the esta­blish­ment of the abo­ve men­ti­o­ned duties, res­pon­si­bi­li­ties and abo­ve all autho­ri­ty, the deci­si­on-making struc­tu­re must be made clear. Usu­al­ly, the pro­ject orga­ni­sa­ti­on is esta­blis­hed in an orga­ni­sa­ti­on chart or orga­no­gram. If pos­si­ble duties and res­pon­si­bi­li­ties should also be spe­ci­fied on this. Powers and man­da­tes may be recor­ded in sepa­ra­te docu­ments or (espe­ci­al­ly for exter­nal pro­ject staff) in contracts.

Project Steering

The stee­ring of the abo­ve five con­trol aspects is stra­te­gic and is led by the objec­ti­ves set at the begin­ning of the pro­ject and tho­se which should be achie­ved by the imple­men­ta­ti­on of the pro­ject. In order to car­ry out the pro­cess within “given con­s­traints of time, money and resour­ces”, the­re are three dis­tinct pro­ject stee­ring steps:

Determination of the project parameters

This rela­tes to the deter­mi­na­ti­on of the basic prin­ci­ples of each of the five con­trol aspects at the begin­ning of the pro­cess. This con­cerns ques­ti­ons such as:

  • how much time is avai­la­ble in rela­ti­on to the desi­red deli­ve­ry date;
  • how much bud­get is available;
  • how the pro­ject will be struc­tu­red in terms of phases;
  • what the rea­lis­tic qua­li­ty requi­re­ments and ambi­ti­on levels are;
  • how inter­nal and exter­nal infor­ma­ti­on ser­vi­ces will be arranged;
  • how the pro­ject orga­ni­sa­ti­on will be set up.

Progress Monitoring

This takes pla­ce throug­hout the pro­ject by means of pro­ject con­struc­ti­on mee­tings. The pha­se results play an impor­tant role in this (see para­g­raph below). The pro­ject results up to a cer­tain point are always check­ed to see whe­ther they still fit within the basic prin­ci­ples of the 5 con­trol aspects laid down at the begin­ning of the pro­ject. For example, with regards to a pro­po­sed pro­ject plan:

  • whe­ther it is imple­men­ta­ble within the remai­ning time;
  • whe­ther it still fits within the budget;
  • whe­ther it still meets the qua­li­ty standards laid down within the fra­me­work of the project;
  • whe­ther given the natu­re of pro­ject, new/other indi­vi­du­als or groups should be briefed;
  • whe­ther the cor­rect pro­fes­si­o­nal dis­ci­pli­nes are still repre­sen­ted within the team;

Adjustments

If during the moni­to­ring of pro­gress any devi­a­ti­ons are obser­ved about one or more of the con­trol aspects, this should be addres­sed. This can be done by chan­ging the desi­red result in such a way so that it falls within the para­me­ters or by chan­ging the para­me­ters or, rather, the standards; for example by incre­a­sing the bud­get, by post­po­ning the dead­line and/or by adjus­ting the requi­re­ments for quality.

Phasing and Structuring

Phasing

To imple­ment a pro­ject a gre­at deal of deci­si­ons need to be taken. It is impor­tant that the­se are taken:

  • in a mea­ning­ful way, i.e. in a sequen­ce that leads to an effi­cient pro­ject pro­cess; for example, with an exhi­bi­ti­on pro­ject by first deter­mi­ning the con­tent and tar­get audien­ce and then deter­mi­ning the form choices;
  • in an effi­cient man­ner. It sta­tes abo­ve that the client is ulti­ma­te­ly res­pon­si­ble for the pro­ject and thus for all choi­ces that must be made. It should be clear that if all deci­si­ons have to be taken in direct con­sulta­ti­on with the client, the pro­ject pro­cess will be gre­at­ly slo­wed down.

In order to achie­ve an effi­cient and mana­ge­a­ble pro­cess, pro­jects are pha­sed. After each pha­se is com­ple­ted, a report is writ­ten in which the choi­ces made ​​in tho­se pha­ses are sum­ma­ri­sed. The­se so-cal­l­ed pha­se results, which have the charac­ter of pro­ject team pro­po­sals are sub­mit­ted to the client for appro­val and form the for­mal deci­si­on-making moments throug­hout the pro­ject pro­cess. In gene­ral the­se pha­se reports inclu­de the following:

  • the sta­tus of the report in terms of the posi­ti­on it occu­pies in the pha­sing of the pro­ject process;
  • a descrip­ti­on of the pro­ject pro­duct. As pro­ject com­ple­ti­on appro­a­ches, this descrip­ti­on will beco­me more concrete;
  • the sta­te of affairs of each of the five con­trol aspects of time, money, qua­li­ty, infor­ma­ti­on and organisation:
  • a fore­cast of fur­ther devel­op­ment, for example regar­ding time the plan­ning, regar­ding money a bud­get. The­se will beco­me more con­cre­te as the pro­ject progresses;
  • any pro­po­sals for chan­ges, such as a bud­get increa­se or a revi­sed pro­ject organisation.

The client checks the pha­se reports against the para­me­ters laid down in ear­lier pha­ses of the pro­ject. The client can appro­ve, amend or reject the pha­se results. After appro­val or after adjust­ments such as amend­ments the next pha­se can be star­ted. The­se appro­ved pha­se results form the para­me­ters on which the results of the next pha­se are tested. Thus a method is cre­a­ted in which the pro­ject team can work rela­ti­ve­ly inde­pen­dent­ly and the client keeps con­trol over the pro­cess and can make adjust­ments whe­re necessary.

If rejec­ted, a situ­a­ti­on ari­ses in which it can be exa­mi­ned whe­ther the para­me­ters are too restric­ti­ve in order for the expec­ted result to be achie­ved or whe­ther the right team is wor­king on the pro­ject. It should be appre­ci­a­ted that in many cases rejec­ti­on will lead to a delay in the pro­ject or even to ter­mi­na­ti­on. Alt­hough ter­mi­na­ti­on of the pro­ject can be extre­me­ly annoying, espe­ci­al­ly if it hap­pens in one of the first sta­ges, it can also be seen as a posi­ti­ve. After all, a pro­ject, which is not like­ly to meet expecta­ti­ons is bet­ter stop­ped in good time.

Standard Phasing

Over the years in which pro­ject mana­ge­ment has devel­o­ped as a dis­ci­pli­ne, a standard pha­sing has evol­ved. This is based on the fol­lo­wing pha­ses 4

Preliminary phase

The Ini­ti­a­ti­on pha­se has an explo­ra­to­ry charac­ter and can be seen as a pre­li­mi­na­ry pre-stu­dy pha­se. At this sta­ge the­re is not real­ly talk of a pro­ject, but more of an idea that some­o­ne has or a pro­blem needing a solu­ti­on. The ini­ti­a­tors, often employ­ees of the insti­tu­ti­on or com­pa­ny, sub­mit the pro­blem or idea to the mana­ge­ment team. If they see some­thing in this pro­blem or idea, it may be deci­ded to inves­ti­ga­te the pro­ject idea fur­ther. This invol­ves a first explo­ra­to­ry stu­dy of the para­me­ters of the pro­ject, such as:

  • a more pre­ci­se defi­ni­ti­on of the pro­blem or descrip­ti­on of the idea;
  • an ini­ti­al descrip­ti­on of the pos­si­ble end result;
  • pos­si­ble tar­get groups;
  • first esti­ma­tes of neces­sa­ry resour­ces, such as bud­get, faci­li­ties, time and manpower;
  • a review of exis­ting or pro­po­sed poli­cy objectives.

The result of this pha­se is the deci­si­on to actu­al­ly pro­ceed with the pro­ject or to desist. The review of the poli­cy objec­ti­ves will play an impor­tant role in this.

Definition Phase

In fact this is the first sta­ge of the pro­ject. The explo­ra­to­ry basic para­me­ters which were under inves­ti­ga­ti­on in the pre­vious sta­ge will now be fina­li­sed, pos­si­bly after fur­ther inves­ti­ga­ti­on. At the end of this pha­se, the pro­ject objec­ti­ves, qua­li­ty requi­re­ments and pos­si­ble tar­get groups are clear­ly docu­men­ted for all con­cerned. It is also poin­ted out within which con­s­traints the pro­ject will be com­ple­ted in terms of time, money and resour­ces. An Acti­on Plan indi­ca­tes how the pro­ject will be struc­tu­red in phases.

Design Phase5

In the defi­ni­ti­on pha­se the goals of the pro­ject were for­mu­la­ted, in this pha­se it is con­si­de­red how the­se can be con­ver­ted to a con­cre­te plan for the result/product of the pro­ject; the pro­ject plan. The pro­ject plan forms a detai­led ide­al solu­ti­on for the “pro­blem” as defi­ned in the defi­ni­ti­on pha­se in terms of objec­ti­ves, qua­li­ty requi­re­ments and para­me­ters. Inte­res­tin­gly, howe­ver, the same pro­blem often has seve­r­al pos­si­ble con­cei­va­ble solu­ti­ons that are more or less even­ly mat­ched, alt­hough each have their own advan­ta­ges and disadvantages.

Preparation Phase

After appro­val the pro­ject plan can be ela­bo­ra­ted upon and made suit­able for imple­men­ta­ti­on. The­se are main­ly tech­ni­cal ela­bo­ra­ti­ons. At the end of this pha­se, all the final choi­ces have been made. For con­struc­ti­on pro­jects, such as exhi­bi­ti­ons, this pha­se is con­clu­ded with a pro­duc­ti­on pro­gram­me, also cal­l­ed the ope­ra­ti­ons or spe­ci­fi­ca­ti­on plan, pos­si­bly sup­ple­men­ted by drawings.

Implementation Phase

In this pha­se on the basis of the ela­bo­ra­ti­ons of the devel­op­ment pha­se the “pro­duct” or “result” of the pro­ject are imple­men­ted in a prac­ti­cal sen­se; for example the con­struc­ti­on of an exhi­bi­ti­on, or are in pro­gress — for example, a reor­ga­ni­sa­ti­on. With the deli­ve­ry of the “pro­duct” the pro­ject is now, in the nar­ro­west sen­se, over.

Follow-up Phase

The imple­men­ta­ti­on  of the pro­ject does not sig­ni­fy the end of the pro­ject in the broa­dest sen­se. The fol­low-up that takes pla­ce in this sta­ge whe­re the pro­duct is used, is desig­ned to keep the pro­ject result in posi­ti­on and to pos­si­bly impro­ve upon it. Fol­low-up can take dif­fe­rent forms:

  • main­tenan­ce, espe­ci­al­ly in con­struc­ti­on pro­jects such as exhibitions;
  • moni­to­ring, for example by means of user eva­lu­a­ti­ons, to exa­mi­ne whe­ther the pro­ject actu­al­ly achie­ved its objec­ti­ves and the desi­red qua­li­ty level;
  • adjust­ments and modi­fi­ca­ti­ons based on short­co­mings and defects;
  • making adjust­ments based on new insights and tech­ni­ques, par­ti­cu­lar­ly with long-term use of the pro­ject results.

In addi­ti­on to the moni­to­ring and eva­lu­a­ti­on of pro­ject results, the pro­ce­du­re of the pro­ject can also be eva­lu­a­ted at this sta­ge. This invol­ves ques­ti­ons such as:

  • was the pro­ject com­ple­ted within bud­get and if not, whe­re did it go wrong6 It should be pos­si­ble on the basis of this to make a final sta­te­ment of accounts for the project.
  • how did the plan­ning go? Were the­re time over­runs and how could the­se have been prevented?
  • how did the part­ner­ships and inter­nal com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on go and are the­re impro­ve­ments that can be made, for example through bet­ter pro­ject organisation?

A com­pre­hen­si­ve pro­duct and pro­cess eva­lu­a­ti­on pre­fe­ra­bly recor­ded in a for­mal eva­lu­a­ti­on report pro­vi­des pro­ject expe­rien­ces and data which can be used for sub­se­quent pro­jects. With sys­te­ma­tic use of this empi­ri­cal data, pro­ject work can be seen as a cycli­cal pro­cess whe­re expe­rien­ces from pre­vious pro­jects are sour­ces of know­led­ge, ide­as and impro­ve­ments for new projects.

Struc­turing

Pha­sing struc­tu­res the pro­ject. This struc­tu­re does not always fol­low the standard pha­ses descri­bed abo­ve but may vary from pro­ject to pro­ject, depen­ding on the natu­re, size or charac­te­ris­tics of the pro­ject. Thus for the bene­fit of, for example, con­struc­ti­on projects:

  • the design pha­se can be divi­ded into a research and plan­ning stage,
  • the devel­op­ment pha­se into a defi­ni­ti­ve design and spe­ci­fi­ca­ti­on stage,
  • the imple­men­ta­ti­on pha­se into a pre­fa­bri­ca­ti­on and site-spe­ci­fic con­struc­ti­on or instal­la­ti­on phase

For smal­ler pro­jects, such as tem­po­ra­ry exhi­bi­ti­ons, one can dis­tin­guish in the fol­low-up pha­se bet­ween a use- and con­clu­ding pha­se. In pro­jects for the govern­ment, pre­fer­red models may be impo­sed upon con­trac­tors. Thus con­trac­tors in the EC should make use of the Inte­gra­ted Appro­ach and Logi­cal Fra­me­work that the EC devel­o­ped espe­ci­al­ly for its con­trac­tors to use 7

The intro­duc­ti­on to pha­sing [(intro­duc­ti­on to pha­sing)] will dis­cuss a pha­sing model spe­ci­al­ly desig­ned for exhi­bi­ti­on making. Here some vari­ants are poin­ted out and rea­sons for apply­ing them. 8

Action Plan

Becau­se the needs of eve­ry pro­ject may dif­fer, it is essen­ti­al that when plan­ning any pro­ject we think about how it can be struc­tu­red. Use can be made here of pre­vious­ly devel­o­ped pha­sing. The star­ting point here should be that the pro­ject struc­tu­re is clear, mea­ning­ful and efficient.

When plan­ning a pro­ject so-cal­l­ed go/­no-go moments can be employ­ed. The­se are pha­se results whe­re the basis on which the deci­si­on to pro­ceed with the pro­ject or not have been esta­blis­hed in advan­ce. Go/­no-go moments are gener­al­ly tied to the first pha­ses of a pro­ject, becau­se the invest­ment in time and money is still rela­ti­ve­ly limi­ted. The incor­po­ra­ti­on of go/­no-go moments is fre­quent­ly asso­ci­a­ted with fund­rai­sing. This allows an exhi­bi­ti­on pro­ject to deci­de to enter an inter­me­di­a­te pha­se of fund­rai­sing after put­ting together a pro­ject plan (cal­l­ed a pro­vi­si­o­nal  design for exhi­bi­ti­ons). When plan­ning a pro­ject, it is deci­ded then that if this pha­se does not achie­ve the desi­red result then the pro­ject will ter­mi­na­te. In such a plan the costs for the making of the pro­vi­si­o­nal design and the fund­rai­sing are deli­be­ra­te­ly seen as risk capi­tal or pre-invest­ment. In gene­ral such an invest­ment is bound to a fixed amount.

Other rea­sons can also lead to a go/­no-go appro­ach. For example, whe­ther mul­ti­ple par­ties will par­ti­ci­pa­te in a pro­ject or not. A pro­ject pro­po­sal must then be cre­a­ted and sub­mit­ted to the desi­red part­ners. If too litt­le is seen in the pro­ject then it is a “no-go”.

The pha­se results, any pos­si­ble go/­no-go moments and the struc­tu­re of the pro­ject in the form of the dif­fe­rent cho­sen pha­ses, together with any jus­ti­fi­ca­ti­ons of the choi­ces made, are all sum­ma­ri­sed in an Acti­on Plan.

[#2: Example of Acti­on Plan [3]]

Pro­ject­ Man­age­ment and Permanent Organisations

Ear­lier in this intro­duc­ti­on it was sta­ted that pro­jects often result from the work of a per­ma­nent orga­ni­sa­ti­on, such as a cul­tu­ral insti­tu­ti­on or a com­pa­ny. In prac­ti­ce, the imple­men­ta­ti­on of pro­jects by or within a per­ma­nent orga­ni­sa­ti­on is not wit­hout pro­blems. See­ing as exhi­bi­ti­ons are gener­al­ly orga­ni­sed with the direct invol­ve­ment of a num­ber of staff mem­bers, and as more and more insti­tu­ti­ons and com­pa­nies are swit­ching to more flexi­ble pro­ject work, here is a brief look at the­se problems.

A major rea­son for the emer­gen­ce of ten­si­ons bet­ween a per­ma­nent and a pro­ject-based orga­ni­sa­ti­on is the dif­fe­ren­ce in cul­tu­re9 In the dia­gram below seve­r­al dif­fe­ren­ces are shown bet­ween a per­ma­nent and a pro­ject-based organisation.

Diagram: Differences between permanent and project-based organisations (author Han Meeter)

Dia­gram: Dif­fe­ren­ces bet­ween per­ma­nent and pro­ject-based orga­ni­sa­ti­ons (author Han Meeter)

In sum­ma­ry it can be sta­ted that through its one-off result-orien­ted natu­re, a pro­ject-based orga­ni­sa­ti­on has a less rigid and for­mal way of thin­king and acting. This is rein­for­ced by the fact that pro­ject orga­ni­sa­ti­ons are gener­al­ly small and flat. They often invol­ve a limi­ted num­ber of peo­p­le who work clo­se­ly with each other and dif­fer litt­le in terms of exper­ti­se and level of devel­op­ment. The pro­ject mana­ger is often a ‘first among equals’.

Charac­te­ro­lo­gi­cal dif­fe­ren­ces also play a role. One will feel more at home in the clear, often well-con­trol­led envi­ron­ment of a per­ma­nent orga­ni­sa­ti­on; the other more so in the more fluid and uncer­tain world of wor­king con­stant­ly on dif­fe­rent pro­jects. Part­ly becau­se of this, it is not easy to intro­du­ce pro­ject-based work into per­ma­nent orga­ni­sa­ti­ons and team mem­bers from the per­ma­nent orga­ni­sa­ti­on often func­ti­on less well in pro­ject teams.

In addi­ti­on, a com­mon pro­blem is the so-cal­l­ed career-con­flict. This may occur if a mem­ber of a pro­ject team comes from the per­ma­nent orga­ni­sa­ti­on. On account of the fact that the struc­tu­res of the pro­ject orga­ni­sa­ti­on and that of the exis­ting orga­ni­sa­ti­on will inter­min­gle, ten­si­ons may ari­se, espe­ci­al­ly if the team mem­ber is lin­ked to the pro­ject part-time and is the­re­fo­re ser­ving dif­fe­rent inte­rests. In fact, the pro­ject employ­ee has two bos­ses, his head of depart­ment or direc­tor and the pro­ject mana­ger. Both have their own dis­tinct inte­rests and will expect that the employ­ee will be more favou­ra­bly com­mit­ted to them­sel­ves. The con­flict is aggra­va­ted by the employ­ee being depen­dent on his “boss” and clo­se col­lea­gues from the per­ma­nent orga­ni­sa­ti­on for his career and the wor­king envi­ron­ment. For a good wor­king envi­ron­ment and assess­ment of his per­for­man­ce in the pro­ject team, he is depen­dent on the pro­ject lea­der and pro­ject team mem­bers. 10.

In order to avoid a career-con­flict, the res­pon­si­bi­li­ties, powers and duties of the­se wor­kers should be clear­ly regu­la­ted, both for their work for the per­ma­nent orga­ni­sa­ti­on and for the pro­ject orga­ni­sa­ti­on. A clear posi­ti­o­ning of the pro­ject within the who­le orga­ni­sa­ti­on is also impor­tant. Not only will a pro­ject that is of recog­ni­sa­ble sig­ni­fi­can­ce to the orga­ni­sa­ti­on be able to count on more sup­port from the staff of the per­ma­nent orga­ni­sa­ti­on, but also this will cla­ri­fy how the pro­ject orga­ni­sa­ti­on is inser­ted into the per­ma­nent orga­ni­sa­ti­on and what con­se­quen­ces this has for the employ­ees who are mem­bers of both parts. In this con­text the tas­ks and powers of the per­ma­nent organisation’s mana­ge­ment and tho­se of the pro­ject mana­ger can be adju­sted with res­pect to the employ­ee in ques­ti­on. Here, powers on a func­ti­o­nal level (how does the employ­ee ful­fil his obli­ga­ti­ons and what are the con­se­quen­ces for his career) can con­ti­nue to lie with the mana­ger, whilst at ope­ra­ti­o­nal level (when work is to be per­for­med when) the res­pon­si­bi­li­ty for the dura­ti­on of the pro­ject is pla­ced with the pro­ject mana­ger. The lat­ter can report to the mana­ger at the end of the pro­ject about the per­for­man­ce of the employ­ee in the pro­ject and he can take this data for use in per­for­man­ce app­rai­sals. For inter­me­di­a­te pro­blems with the func­ti­o­ning of the employ­ee in the pro­ject, the mana­ger should be con­sul­ted. Thus the­re ari­ses a clear divi­si­on of tas­ks bet­ween the employee’s two bos­ses whe­re it is clear who is res­pon­si­ble for what.

Whe­re pos­si­ble, a part-time com­mit­ment to the pro­ject should be avoi­ded. This will, howe­ver, be dif­fi­cult in the majo­ri­ty of cases. It is impor­tant in a part-time com­mit­ment that the employ­ee has suf­fi­cient time to con­tri­bu­te to the pro­ject. Due to a lack of expe­rien­ce with pro­ject-based work, many exe­cu­ti­ves in per­ma­nent orga­ni­sa­ti­ons often unde­resti­ma­te pro­ject work. All too often employ­ees must do the pro­ject “on the side”. When the per­ma­nent orga­ni­sa­ti­on has insuf­fi­cient resour­ces avai­la­ble to make the employ­ee free for the pro­ject, this may have dis­agree­able con­se­quen­ces for both the per­ma­nent orga­ni­sa­ti­on, the pro­ject and not least the employ­ee. In such cases it is bet­ter to rai­se funds to hire some­o­ne in from out­si­de the orga­ni­sa­ti­on. If this is not pos­si­ble, it may be asked whe­ther the per­ma­nent orga­ni­sa­ti­on is capa­ble of car­rying out the pro­ject and whe­ther the pos­si­bi­li­ty of not going through with it should be considered.

Corporate Culture and Project-based Work

One can dis­tin­guish bet­ween various cul­tu­res in per­ma­nent orga­ni­sa­ti­ons. The­se can be sum­ma­ri­sed into four types, namely:

  • power cul­tu­re;
  • role cul­tu­re;
  • per­son culture;
  • task cul­tu­re.

It should be not­ed that dif­fe­rent cul­tu­res may be pre­sent at the same time in an organisation.

Pro­ject-based work fits in bet­ter with one cul­tu­re than with others. It is the­re­fo­re impor­tant that a mana­ger who wants to intro­du­ce pro­ject-based work knows which culture(s ) is/are charac­te­ris­tic of his orga­ni­sa­ti­on. This is also impor­tant for a pro­ject mana­ger to know. In this way he can make a note of the resis­tan­ce he might encoun­ter within the per­ma­nent organisation.

A more detai­led descrip­ti­on of each of the four cul­tu­res that we can see in an orga­ni­sa­ti­on will be given below. Arche­ty­pes have been adop­ted here which in rea­li­ty rare­ly or never occur in pure form. Usu­al­ly we find mixed forms domi­na­ted by one of the four cul­tu­re types.

Cul­tu­ral dif­fe­ren­ces bet­ween orga­ni­sa­ti­ons or depart­ments are reflec­ted part­ly in the fol­lo­wing aspects:

  • way of inter­ac­ting with peo­p­le appro­ach
  • appre­ci­a­ti­on for cer­tain situ­a­ti­ons / peo­p­le valu­es
  • for­mu­la­ti­on of the orga­ni­sa­ti­o­nal objec­ti­ve orga­ni­sa­ti­on
  • adap­ta­bi­li­ty in cer­tain situ­a­ti­ons res­pon­se
  • dea­ling with oppor­tu­ni­ties and thre­ats thre­ats

In the fol­lo­wing descrip­ti­on of the four types of cul­tu­res, charac­te­ris­tic ele­ments are pro­vi­ded asso­ci­a­ted with the aspects refer­red to above.

Power Culture

  • appro­ach: is defi­ned by per­so­nal power or resour­ce power
  • valu­es: charac­te­ri­sed by personality
  • deci­si­on-making: through force
  • orga­ni­sa­ti­on: for per­so­nal goal achie­ve­ment rules of the cen­tral man are important
  • pri­o­ri­ty: to main­tain power
  • res­pon­se: is straightfor­ward to chan­ges in the envi­ron­ment pro­vi­ded the autho­ri­ties are included
  • thre­ats: size, the per­so­na­li­ty of the crown prin­ce.

We come across power cul­tu­re with many gro­wing orga­ni­sa­ti­ons in the pio­nee­ring pha­se and also with fami­ly businesses.

Role Culture

  • appro­ach: is charac­te­ri­sed by fol­lo­wing rules, lines of com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on and autho­ri­ty; tit­les are also important
  • valu­es: sub­or­di­na­ti­on to rules, role fulfilment
  • deci­si­on-making: on the basis of pro­ce­du­re and for­mal position
  • orga­ni­sa­ti­on: main­tai­ning order, cla­ri­ty and peace
  • pri­o­ri­ty: job/role/position
  • res­pon­se: has dif­fi­cul­ty with chan­ging situations
  • thre­ats: paper tiger/bureaucracy

The role cul­tu­re is charac­te­ris­tic of tra­di­ti­o­nal public autho­ri­ties, but also for example in insu­ran­ce com­pa­nies. Within lar­ger muse­ums role cul­tu­re is often domi­nant espe­ci­al­ly in mana­ge­ment departments.

Person Culture

  • appro­ach: only when nee­ded, the­re­fo­re few per­ma­nent struc­tu­res deter­mi­ned by, for example, joint capa­ci­ty sour­ce (buil­ding, com­pu­ter); litt­le bin­ding force.
  • valu­es: exper­ti­se and skills
  • deci­si­on-making: by con­sen­sus or not, no subordination
  • orga­ni­sa­ti­on: for talent
  • pri­o­ri­ty: for skills/profession
  • res­pon­se: is unpre­dic­ta­ble, i.e. all individuals
  • thre­ats: size and disin­te­gra­ti­on through, for example, method struggle

We come across per­son cul­tu­re in many part­ner­ships, for example, desig­ners, archi­tects, lawy­ers or doctors.

Task Culture

  • appro­ach: is defi­ned by the task at hand, time relationship/person/work.
  • valu­es: skil­led wor­ker as do-er
  • deci­si­on-making: on the basis of what is nee­ded at this time for this task
  • orga­ni­sa­ti­on: poo­ling of exper­ti­se, get­ting results, rules unimportant.
  • pri­o­ri­ty: results
  • res­pon­se: is quick to change
  • thre­ats: all or nothing

Task cul­tu­re is charac­te­ris­tic of, for example, con­trac­tors, exhi­bi­ti­on con­trac­tors and pro­du­cers of audio-visu­al pro­gram­ming. Also, public-orien­ted depart­ments of lar­ger muse­ums often have a task culture.

In gene­ral it can be said that task cul­tu­res are the most pro­ject-friend­ly and role cul­tu­res the least. Per­son and power cul­tu­res are in-bet­ween the two.

  1. See also: Pro­ject Model Exhi­bi­ti­ons, page 5 and Ver­haar, J. Pro­ject­ma­na­ge­ment, a pro­fes­si­o­nal appro­ach to events, page 14.
  2. Wiki­pe­dia defi­nes mana­ge­ment as fol­lows “The French word mesna­ge­ment (later ména­ge­ment) influ­en­ced the devel­op­ment in mea­ning of the English word mana­ge­ment in the 17th and 18th cen­tu­ries.” “Mana­ge­ment comprises…leading or directing“and “deri­ves from the Latin word manus (hand)”,“is a pro­cess of suc­ces­si­ve human acti­vi­ties. The­se acti­vi­ties can be divi­ded into four groups: (1) on the basis of a visi­on and mis­si­on, defi­ning a stra­te­gy and ela­bo­ra­ting it through plans (trans­la­ted into spe­ci­fic, mea­su­ra­ble, achie­va­ble, rea­lis­tic and time-bound (SMART prin­ci­ple) orga­ni­sa­ti­o­nal objec­ti­ves), (2) the struc­tu­ring of the orga­ni­sa­ti­on, (3) direc­ting the staff, and (4) chec­king whe­ther objec­ti­ves are rea­ched. This pro­cess deno­tes the various con­sti­tu­ent ele­ments of mana­ge­ment.”
  3. Inci­den­tal­ly, the­re are seve­r­al descrip­ti­ons of pro­jects and pro­ject mana­ge­ment all of which amount to more or less the same. Accor­ding to Ver­haar pro­ject mana­ge­ment is the “… stee­ring of pro­ces­ses within a tem­po­ra­ry orga­ni­sa­ti­on”, whe­re­by pro­ject mana­ge­ment is charac­te­ri­sed by “… the sys­te­ma­tic and inte­gral con­trol of the devel­op­ment of a cre­a­ti­ve idea into a tan­gi­ble pro­duct or result” (Ver­haar, J, Pro­ject Mana­ge­ment: a pro­fes­si­o­nal appro­ach to events page 14). Grit defi­nes a pro­ject as “… a tem­po­ra­ry ros­ter of a num­ber of peo­p­le — usu­al­ly from dif­fe­rent fields — to achie­ve a fixed bud­get a pre­de­ter­mi­ned goal” (Grit, R, Pro­ject Mana­ge­ment, page 21.)
  4. See also Grit. R., Pro­ject­ma­na­ge­ment, p. 26 — 29. Grit descri­bes the pha­ses based on the standard pha­sing com­pi­led by the spe­ci­a­list pro­ject mana­ge­ment con­sul­tan­cy Twynstra & Gud­de. On their web­si­te the­re is a com­pre­hen­si­ve publi­ca­ti­on on pro­ject mana­ge­ment
  5. The word design is under­stood in the gene­ral sen­se. It may also cover, for example, the cre­a­ti­on of a poli­cy, a reor­ga­ni­sa­ti­on plan, a plan for the intro­duc­ti­on of auto­ma­ti­on or for the descrip­ti­on of a muse­um col­lec­ti­on or for a script for a movie.
  6. This is gener­al­ly only con­cerned with bud­get over­runs. Howe­ver, even if the final bill shows a lar­ge posi­ti­ve balan­ce, it may still be asked whe­ther the pro­ject has been pro­per­ly imple­men­ted. After all the­re was bud­get avai­la­ble to achie­ve a bet­ter result.
  7. See also Manu­al Pro­ject Cycle Mana­ge­ment: inte­gra­ted appro­ach and logi­cal fra­me­work (sp 1993)
  8. pha­sing models are also put together for other types of pro­ject. For example, Ver­haar in Pro­ject Mana­ge­ment 1, a pro­fes­si­o­nal appro­ach to events, sta­ge models for con­fe­ren­ces, exhi­bi­ti­ons, fes­ti­vals and events, sta­ge pro­duc­ti­ons, video-/film­pro­duc­ti­ons and tra­de fairs. (Ver­haar, J. Pro­ject 1, page 245 ff)
  9. (Orga­ni­sa­ti­on) cul­tu­re can be descri­bed as a sys­tem of impli­cit and expli­cit pat­terns of thin­king, fee­ling and acting, whe­re the­se pat­terns are car­ried out by the peo­p­le who make up the orga­ni­sa­ti­on. Other terms that can be used are atmos­p­he­re, cli­ma­te, valu­es ​​and norms. (See also Ver­haar, J., Mee­ter. J., Pro­ject Model Exhi­bi­ti­ons page 25)
  10. See also Ver­haar, J., Mee­ter. J., Pro­ject Model Exhi­bi­ti­ons page 20 and Grit. R., Pro­ject­ma­na­ge­ment, page 44