In order to have full access of this Article, Project Management for Information Technology please email us on thedocumentco@hotmail.co.uk
Introduction
Project Management for Information Technology, This paper focuses on how interpersonal relations pressurize the IT projects. To understand what we are talking about in the course of this paper, Project Management for Information Technology we need to understand a few very important terms and theories.
Team and Group
The first thing that comes to our mind when we talk about a project is a project team, which comprises of the following two things:
1. Project Manager- the project administrator, a person who overlooks the project
2. Individuals- people who are selected at the Initiation Stage
The individuals collectively can either form a group or a team. Project Management for Information Technology “A group is one in which individuals have a common aim and in which the jobs and skills of each member fit in with those of the others” (Babington Smith, 1979). The difference between a group and a team is that in a group the people are mere individuals, who do not interact with each other and are not centered at agreement, while a team is one where the individuals are one unit, they contribute and share ideas and remain in touch to achieve their common goal. Tuckman has given us two set of ideologies. First, Project Management for Information Technology he proposed the characteristics of a team, which are having a sense of belonging, having a common goal and evolving through the project. Next he named the evolutionary phases as forming, when the team forms; storming, the discussion time; norming, agreeing on one thing; and performing, when the team starts working (Tuckman, 1965). A team that works as one unit, has a clear objective and at the same time the team members are good enough on their own, is an effective one.
Dr. Meredith Belbin has classified 9 roles in a team (Belbin, 1993):
1. Chairperson: the manager ideally who provides a leadership role
2. Shaper: a person who structures the thinking of a team
3. Plant: somebody who gives suggestions
4. Monitor: somebody who is a critical analyzer
5. Company worker: somebody who can work efficiently
6. Team worker: somebody who works and is supportive to others
7. Resource Investigator: a person who is good at locating and getting resources required to complete the task
8. Completer: a person who has long-term focuses
Managing a project team
During the course of a project, the team’s morale rises and falls at various stages. A typical ‘project adrenaline graph’ is shown below:
Figure 1: Project Adrenaline Graph
(Project Management for IT. 20th edn, 2007)
Initially, the team’s morale is high, and it falls towards the middle of the project due to the many problems and difficulties in the way of the project. But, as these are overcome the morale starts to increase again and the team finally finishes the project. The team members must be encouraged and they might be motivated by: ensuring their satisfaction, providing a challenge and providing them a scope for development. But when we talk of ‘Information Systems’ projects we must bear in mind that “technical specialists are more comfortable in conversing via diagrams and figures as compared to conversing with words. Actually they just do that when somebody forces them to do so” (McManus and Kalugerovich, 2002). Technical specialists do not work in the same way as other workers. They view the world in binary black and white, their motivation does not come about the same way as it does in other people, they do not connect to the external world with fervor and this is why incorporating them into a team is a difficult thing to do.
Leadership
Ros Jay (2002) suggests that “to achieve this success, the project manager may need to adopt a servant role by facilitating the performance of each team member”. This leads us to the functions of a leader which include: categorizing and accomplishing the target, planning and organizing the team and increase the motivation of the team members.
Literature Review
IT Project Failures
“Partial or total failure of information technology projects is widespread throughout all sectors of the business world, as well as in not-for-profit sectors, and the estimated annual costs run into many millions of pounds” (Flowers, 1996). When a system does not fall on one’s expectations, it is said to have failed. In this part of the paper, we will see how and why a typical project fails.
Major Problems:
The main problems that occur have been stated by Gilhooley (1986) as:
1. Systems do not fulfill the user’s demands.
2. Systems are rigid; they do not cater to global needs.
3. The systems are expensive, cost much more than expected.
4. The systems do not meet the deadlines.
5. The systems do not have a specific strategy, they are almost haphazard.
6. Also, the systems are difficult to modify and expensive to run.
According a review, on projects of information technology, conducted by the Standish Group in the United States of America, it was revealed that while 16% of the organizations were completely triumphant in achieving the goal, 31% of the institutions were unsuccessful disastrously. The rest of the 53% acquired only part of the assigned project.
According to another review two types of failures were reported. These are shown in the figure below:
Figure 2: Failure Patterns in IT Projects
(Project Management for IT. 20th edn, 2007)
The first type is the one which fails after it is implemented which is the sustainability failure, while the other fails to even implement, which is called the replication failure.
Stephen Flowers (1969) has classified some failure factors and he says: “The crucial elements of a project that, when they are in a less than optimal state, will increase the chance that an IS project will either fail or, at worst, become a disaster.” These are the
1. Organization
2. Project Management
Conflict
As an Information technology project means to deliver a change that will affect the way things work, it often does lead to a conflict.Project Management for Information Technology Thomas describes a conflict to be “A process which begins when one party perceives that the other has negatively affected, or is about to negatively affect, something that he or she cares about” (Thomas, 1992). There are many types of conflicts:
1. Unitary (traditional): these are those conflicts which are caused by the people of the team themselves. These are to be looked out by the manager.
2. Pluralists (behavioral): these are the natural and unavoidable conflicts. The manager has to act as the mediator in these cases.
3. Interactionist: these are those conflicts which instill creativity, basically those conflicts which prove to be beneficial for the team.
While conflicts use up time and energy and lead to resentment and mistrust, they also help in the production of plans, imagination and originality and also help in problem-solving. The conflicts may be between individuals, Project Management for Information Technology sub-groups, groups and the organization.
Conflicts in ‘Information Technology’ cases may occur due to the particulars of manufactured goods, the deadlines, the rates and finances, the human resources, the applications of certain programs and the testing of applications etc.
Interpersonal Conflicts
Conflicts may occur between people due to:
1. Cultural Differences: An example that we can see here is that of Hong Kong and the US, where the first uses “individualistic and collectivistic cultures” with similar cultures to settle on the conflicts and the second chooses strategies which have an influential cultural background.
2. Difference in Values: Dimensions, the constructs of individualism collectivism and power distance have demonstrated the most promise in linking conflict behavior. It favors hierarchy, and not nationality, individualism collectivism, and power.
3. Differences in Belief: Axiom Scale to measure culturally learned beliefs. Different beliefs lead to different ways of tackling conflicts.
4. Self-monitoring: How a person views his own self is very important when it comes to dealing with conflicts.
5. Emotional Intelligence: The more emotionally intelligent a person is the more his capability to normalize emotions and to make better friends, better partners, better co-workers, and better leaders. Assessment specifies an amplified aptitude to comprehend how sensitive one is within a circle.
(Kaushal and Kwantes, 2006)
Social Psychology Conflicts
1. Power bifurcation – intersender clash. The most generally recognized part clash in a lattice association is intersender clash coming about from the bifurcation of power. The FM, then again, sends an option set of part requests to the FS. Project Management for Information Technology This reasons intersender clash for the FS on the grounds that he or she can’t totally satisfy the part desires from one sender without trading off the desires from the other.
2. Power bifurcation – intrasender clash. The double order nature of framework associations empowers the PM and FM to move for power (Davis and Lawrence, 1978). The FS frequently turns into the pawn in this force battle with both the FM and the PM issuing mandates to the FS which are frequently intended to protect or increment their separate force bases.
3. Power bifurcation – interrole clash. An extraordinary arrangement of anxiety is made for the FS in endeavoring to determine the intersender and interrole clashes emerging from the bifurcation of power. At last all the time and exertion gave to the task results in interrole clash for the FS, as less time furthermore, exertion can be apportioned to the parts outside the association.
4. Power bifurcation – individual part clash. Deckro/ Social brain science of task administration clash 221 one for the clashing parts that exist in a framework association. Since the bifurcation of power makes objective progressive system vagueness and the infringement of the rule of solidarity of summon is seen by numerous as being at change with great administration rehearses, disappointment is made in numerous FSs.
5. Specialized unpredictability – intersender clash. The all the more actually complex the task, the more prominent the number and assorted qualities of FSs working on the undertaking at any one point in time.
6. Specialized many-sided quality – intrasender clash. As an aftereffect of acclimating to moving circumstances, the part requests sent to a FS by the PM or an individual from the PMS at one point in time will probably clash with the part requests sent to the same FS at an alternate point in time. The FS, in exploring the part sendings got from the PM through time, will recognize the irregularities furthermore, encounter intrasender clash.
7. Specialized intricacy – interrole clash. With more noteworthy specialized multifaceted nature, expanded work requests are set on all task colleagues. As the venture forces spontaneous work prerequisites on undertaking colleagues, the necessities of parts outside the association start to clash with undertaking parts.
8. Specialized unpredictability – individual part clash. As the venture’s specialized unpredictability increments, the FS is more inclined to experience individual part clash which fixates on the FS’s actually based conviction framework. Straightforwardly or by implication different FSs will put weight on the central FS to make concessions concerning the central FS accepts to be actually right.
9. Interior legislative issues – intersender clash. Part requests are outlined more to safeguard or upgrade each coalition’s force base than to attain to hierarchical objectives. Deckro/ Social brain research of task administration clasincredible arrangement of political movement, any number of part inhabitants may be bolted into force battles. These force battles could incorporate PM versus FM, PM versus PM, FM versus FM, task staff versus practical staff etc. FSs, who due to their position in the structure frequently have the potential for just little force builds, will depend with respect to ability displaying in request to safeguard vocation alternatives. These diverse individuals from a FS’s part set who are occupied with force battles will issue requests which are intended to expand or protect their force bases.
10. Interior legislative issues – intrasender clash. At the point when the level of authoritative political action is high, a FS is more inclined to get from a single individual from his or her part set requests which are in clash. This is on the grounds that a few requests will be intended to attain to venture objectives, while different requests will be intended to protect on the other hand upgrade the force base of the part sender.
11. Inside governmental issues – interrole clash. As inside legislative issues build, assets (especially extend part time) which would some way or another be given to venture achievement are presently used to save or expand force bases. This will in the long run clash with the necessities of other parts outside the association, bringing about expanded interrole clash.
12. Inner governmental issues – individual part clash. Numerous authoritative individuals find inward governmental issues not to be to the greatest advantage of the association, what’s more, consequently in clash with a conviction framework concerning regulating authoritative conduct. The FS, exceptionally prepared in a specialized forte, is especially liable to view political diversion playing by the different part set individuals as useless to venture objective accomplishment.
13. Life cycle – intersender clash. Research by Thamhain and Wilemon (1975) show that clash issues will change with a venture’s life cycle. This implies that for the central FS, diverse individuals of his part set could turn into the more dynamic operators in delivering intersender clash at diverse life cycle stages.
14. Life cycle – intrasender clash. Every part set part will experience differing levels of contention actuated push as the contention force from the different sources change with the period of the venture life cycle. Every part set part will in turn make intrasender clash for the FS in extent to the anxiety every part set part encounters at the diverse venture life cycle stages.
15. Life cycle – interrole clash. In the early stages the work interest for most FSs will be light (aside from those FSs, for example, configuration engineers who are most vigorously included in the early stages) and afterward get to be extensively heavier amid the primary and end of project stages.
16. Life cycle – individual part clash. For the FS individual part clash power will likewise fluctuate with the undertaking life cycle. It will be least amid the prior stages and increment in power amid the primary program and end of system stages. Amid the principle project stage when venture action is extreme and countless are endeavoring to finish the main part of undertaking issues, interpersonal clash among the FSs will be the most elevated.
(Jones and Deckro, 1993)
The project
Data innovation propels quickly, with new improvements happening constantly, so it is enticing for the individuals who are outlining data frameworks to utilize the most recent specialized arrangements or, surprisingly more terrible, blends of new innovations that have never been incorporated beforehand. This methodology is embraced for various reasons: Firstly, the praise connected with conveying a main edge specialized undertaking. Secondly, a conviction that utilizing around date arrangements will defend against the danger of right on time innovative outdated nature for the venture’s yields. Thirdly, weight from specialized experts whose fundamental investment may lie in trying different things with the new innovation essentially rather than a possible framework advancement. It ought to additionally be noticed that the full multifaceted nature of another data framework is frequently not refreshing until the later phases of the task when a few work bundles in light of specialized methodologies need to be incorporated.
Deficiency of practical talents to construct people is a meticulous crisis in IT projects. There may also be communication problems between different individuals in a project. The accompanying agenda condenses these basic disappointment variables:
1. Hostile association with accuse society?
2. Poor engagement of senior administrators with venture?
3. Loss of objectivity by task group?
4. Political weights for right on time achievement?
5. New (or various incorporated) specialized arrangements?
6. Design lead vague?
7. Skills and capability concerns?
8. High turnover of undertaking staff?
9. Deadlines beginning to slip?
The Case
The case we are discussing is:
“On the fourth June 1996 at 1233 GMT (UTC) the European Space Agency propelled another rocket, Ariane 5, on its lady unmanned flight. Ariane blasted following 40 seconds of its lift-off. In spite of the fact that this was an unmanned flight and accordingly there were no human losses, there is no motivation to expect that the result would have been any distinctive if the flight had been kept an eye on. In such an occasion all onflight team and travelers would have been slaughtered. Keep in mind as we move ahead through this case that this was a task of the extremely experienced European Space Agency. The undertaking expense was $ 7 billion. A piece of the payload were four satellites, Cluster, that would participate in a logical examination. These satellites had taken numerous years to create and cost around $ 100 million. They were fundamental.” In a report, James Gleick has said:
“It consumed the European Room Agency (ESA) 10 years and $7 billion to deliver Ariane 5, a monster rocket equipped for throwing a pair of three-ton satellites into space with every dispatch and expected to give Europe overpowering amazingness in the space business. All it took to blast that rocket not as much as a moment into its first venture last June, Project Management for Information Technology dispersing searing rubble over the mangrove bogs of French Guiana, was a little PC system attempting to stuff a 64-bit number into a 16-bit space. One bug, one accident. Of every last one of rushed lines of code recorded in the chronicles of software engineering, this one may remain as the most devastatingly proficient.”
Reason for Ariane 5 was to convey satellite to space. It was an enhanced form of Ariane4. Control System of Ariane5 was made out of :
• An inertial reference framework (SRI)
• An On-Board Computer (OBC)
SRI of Ariane 5 same as one in Ariane 4.Ariane 5 fizzled because of SRI Software special case created because of an information change. At the time of the disappointment, the product in the SRI was doing an information change from 64-bit gliding point to 16-bit whole number. The drifting point number had a quality more noteworthy than could be spoken to by a 16-bit marked number; Project Management for Information Technology this brought about a flood programming special case. It was really a reuse slip. The SRI flat inclination module was reused from 10-year-old programming, the programming from Ariane 4. At the same time this is not the full story: It is a reuse determination mistake. The really unsatisfactory part is the nonappearance of any sort of exact determination connected with a reusable module. The prerequisite that the even predisposition should fit in 16 bits was actually expressed in a dark piece of a report. In any case in the code itself it was mysteriously absent! The Ariane 5 debacle was a wakeup require the product building group. Fitting moves ought to be made to guarantee such a disappointment does not happen once.
This project failed due to the following reasons:
1. Absence of clear, well-thoroughly considered out objectives and determinations
2. Poor administration and poor correspondence among clients, planners, programmers
3. Incorrect ventures to repeat and ill-advised shortcoming assignment
4. Institutional or obstinate weights that support unrealistically low offers, unreasonably low plan demands, furthermore, disparages of time necessities
5. Use of new innovation, with obscure unwavering quality and issues, maybe for which programming engineers have deficient experience and skill.
6. Refusal to perceive or concede that a task is in dilemma.
(Dalal and Chillar, 2012)
Forestalling Malfunction
The conspicuous methodology is to comprehend and properly deal with the causal discriminating disappointment considers that have been recognized in the former areas. It is essential to comprehend that the emergence of a number of these components can be avoided via watchful thoughtfulness regarding venture definition and task arranging. The accompanying rundown combines a great part of the material from this and past segments:
1. User inclusion – there requirements to be a communitarian exertion in the middle of clients and engineers all through the venture life cycle. The driver for the specialized arrangement ought to be the prerequisites rather than the accessible innovation. Prior to the framework goes live, clients need satisfactory preparing.
2. Stakeholder administration – in view of cautious examination and investment plans.
3. Senior administration responsibility – this needs to be kept up all through the task life cycle and into the – frequently troublesome – execution stage.
4. Behavioral mindfulness – the new IT framework may have a scope of effects on staff, including by and large antagonistic vibe.
5. Understand the association…
Recent Comments