Mantra for Innovative Project Management

Vikas DubeyAdvisory Project ManagerCSC INDIA

Innovations within Project Management and It's

Innovative ApplicationsMantra for Innovative Project Management -

Innovative Development or Research InitiativesVikas Dubey

PMI Member ID: 526375

PMP, PMI RMP, CISA, CSM, ITIL v3 F

This paper focus is on reviewing inventive models and theories and how they can be applied in the field of project management to bring about a refreshing change. The views expressed in this paper are purely author’s personal thoughts.

2 | P a g e

ContentsBackground..................................................................................................................................................3

Introduction.................................................................................................................................................3

Innovation and its Application.....................................................................................................................4

TRIZ Model..............................................................................................................................................5

Morphological Analysis............................................................................................................................7

System Concept-Knowledge....................................................................................................................9

Method of Focal Objects.......................................................................................................................10

Conclusion.................................................................................................................................................11

About the author.......................................................................................................................................12

References.................................................................................................................................................12

Reference 1....................................................................................................................................................12

Reference 2....................................................................................................................................................12

Reference 3....................................................................................................................................................12

Reference 4....................................................................................................................................................12

3 | P a g e

BackgroundToday, our mainstream delivery project management practice is at cross roads. The ground below us is

rapidly shifting, and we cannot be managing projects any longer like the way we have been managing in

the past. First, the new services landscapes are undergoing massive transformation to provide next-

generation service products. Second, the schedule-related challenges have increased so much so that

sponsors would like to achieve project outcomes as of yesterday. Third, another challenge which we are

facing today is that regular projects are increasing, thereby becoming commoditized to the extent of

becoming more of provisioning requests than “project” per se. Fourth key challenge is how to incorporate

new and innovative models into our project management concepts to achieve project outcomes and

address project challenges.

IntroductionTo date, our project management has been defined in terms of triple constraints of scope, budget, and

schedule. However, in the dynamic times in which we are living, we see constant changes to scope.

Inability to adjust to the evolving scope makes us look rigid and anti-business. This is not because we

missed on any core elements of scope during planning, but due to the fact that our esteemed sponsors

would like us to address more and more new scope and deliverables in same amount of time. Coming

back, in today’s world, schedule is emerging as the most important and has now become the essence of

success minus the technical debt.

All this may make you think, why we are talking of Project Management and these topics? We are

thinking and discussing this topic because we would like to do projects in a manner in which we consider

limitless possibilities. We are talking about how to work towards a thought wherein refreshing approach,

free from any kind of constricted thinking in terms of constraints, can be nurtured. We are talking about

these things because we want to open up, like a lotus, whom the global people will look forward to project

management as panacea solutions for all of their problems and business needs, thereby furthering our

profession and its professionals in high demand.

4 | P a g e

Innovation and its Application

Coming to pure innovations / inventive thinking models, I have tried to look at various options available

which we can review, consider, and also possibly choose to apply in project management space. As per

me, there are four commonly taught inventive concepts (there could be more; however, the author felt

these are the main ones) in the field of innovations management:

1. A methodology for the systematic application of TRIZ - TRIZICS

2. Morphological Analysis or General Morphological Analysis

3. System Concept-Knowledge Theory - C-K Theory

4. Method of focal objects

Apart from above, about four decades ago, in the 1970s, radical concept of eXtreme programming

originated. More recently, we have seen massive interest in Agile followed by DevOps. If we observe

these trends, we find that basically, requirements need to be very quickly converted into meaningful

business results. The concept of DevOps takes us even further, when they try to include in its fold post

development/ deployment loop.

Let’s try and think how we can apply the above listed models in our field of project management, laying

emphasis on project management model.

5 | P a g e

TRIZ Model

The TRIZ was originally conceived by Dr. Genrikh Saulovich Altshuller, Russian author of Theory of

Inventive Problem Solving. 1

A more recent form, Systematic Inventive Thinking (SIT), has come up which is based on TRIZ. The SIT

was conceptualized by Israelis in the 1990s. SIT is a practical approach to creativity, innovation, and

problem solving, which has become a well-known methodology for Innovation.

In TRIZ, Dr Altshuller, while working at patent office, had analyzed more than two hundred thousand

patents in order to find out and identify common inventive principles, on which he has based his unique

formula, named TRIZ. While doing his analysis of such high number of patents, he concluded in his model

that there are about 40 common inventive principles. Dr. Altshuller’s key finding was to do with creative

solutions and an elimination of conflict, in a given problem scope statement. He concluded that we get

solutions for our problems and constraints by varying or playing around with input parameter, in order to

achieve the best fit solution. However, he noted that a conflict is a state where one parameter must be

changed, in order to get some benefit, but changing that parameter causes a deterioration of another

important parameter. Routine engineering designs deal with this situation by searching for the "best fit"

compromise, a trade-off that maximizes the utility and minimizes the negative impact of a specific

configuration of the variance of the available input parameters.

1 Theory of inventive problem solving - http://www.triz-journal.com/whatistriz, with special thanks to the author of Triz, Dr Genrikh Saulovich Altshuller.

Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIZ and also Systematic Inventive Thinking - http://www.sitsite.com/6 | P a g e

TRIZ Model

When we apply TRIZ to our project management approach, we can see that we are basically dealing with

triple constraint variables, but using 6-40 larger set of combinations to arrive at solutions in a given

constrained set in the context of project situation. However, in a common project scenario, we do not

commonly put in inputs into modeling software to derive possible solutions; we have rather chosen to do

somewhat freestyle, based on empirical evidence or regular practice.

Based on above, I am of the opinion that if we use a more formal project modeling software model

frequently, or rather to say more commonly like we use, say project scheduling software, coupled with

high statistical treatment of variables and constraints, we can come up with more solution options and

present more options to meet client and sponsor objectives, rather than in the absence of such modeling

software. For a moment, if we can think of its impact on estimates in terms of schedule, scope and

budget, it appears that this model has the capability to impact profound changes.

7 | P a g e

Morphological Analysis

The second inventive modeling method which we can consider reviewing is Morphological Analysis or the

General Morphological Analysis.2 This method was developed by Fritz Zwicky, working at the California

Institute of Technology, the USA. He had used this model on development of jet and rocket propulsion

systems. This model works backwards from outcomes to components level and not vice versa.

Diagrammatic depiction of Morphological Analysis

2

Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphological_analysis_(problem-solving)

Dr Fritz Zwicky - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Zwicky

Diagram - http://redruthproductdesign.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/5a-ideas-morphological-analysis2.jpg and also http://www.swemorph.com/ma.html8 | P a g e

Zwicky Box and 3-Parameter field

When we choose to apply this model in the context of project management, we work backwards from

project outcomes to triple constraints. By going this way, we are more focused on client end objectives or

the benefit outcomes first and not become overly worried about project components; if I may suggest,

project outcomes override project constraints in this case, because we do projects and programs for end

benefit outcomes and not for battling with constraints. It is but obvious that constraints cannot be

overlooked in a practical world; however, their priority will only come second and will be considered only if

they come in the way of solving project outcomes. The work around will be third priority here.

9 | P a g e

System Concept-Knowledge

The third model is about System Concept-Knowledge or the C-K Theory.3. This model is based on C-K

theory, wherein “C” stands for concept space and “K” stands for knowledge space. It is basically a theory

of reasoning which is applied while in design stage. It is formally a breakdown design reasoning logic

which can be used in logic elaboration or logic expansion process, which leads to generation of unknown

objects. The theory builds on several past approaches of design theory, such as systematic, axiomatic,

creative, and so on design concepts and also uses artificial intelligence-based design models. The C-K

design theory claims that it is the first design theory which offers and explains the following:

1. Comprehensive formalization of design that is independent of any design domain.

2. Invention, creation, and discovery within the same design framework and processes.

Consider using this approach in project conceptualization and initiation and planning, keeping in mind that

this phase constitutes about 35% of project management. Let’s try to consider expansion of the C and K

spaces through the application of four types of operators: C→C, C→K, K→C, and K→K.

3 C-K Theory - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-K_theory

Hatchuel, A and Weil, B 2003, “A new approach of innovative design: an introduction to C-K theory.” Proceedings of the international conference on engineering design (ICED’03), Stockholm, Sweden, pp 109–124

10 | P a g e

C-K Theory Model

The initial concept is partitioned using propositions from K: K→C. These partitions add new properties to

the concepts and create new concepts: C→C. Thanks to a conjunction C→K, this expansion of C may in

return provoke the expansion of the K space: K→K

As per this theory, the process can be thought to be made of square of design. One architecture design

solution, say C0 will be a path in the C-space that forms a new proposition in K. There may exist several

architecture design paths, for same C0 as well. Unlike Morphological Analysis, this is a forward theory,

progressing from scope to outcomes and not vice versa. We need to consider this in light of project

solution approaches and how many method options we can generate to achieve project deliverables and

benefit outcomes. The best fitting in terms of triple constraints can be ranked and chosen for

implementation as our preferred project solution approach.

Method of Focal Objects

The Method of Focal Objects,4 is a technique of creative problem solving which is about the synthesis of

seemingly non-matching characteristics or unique of different objects to create something new and

different from original components. Like for example, if we mix red and green color, we will get yellow

color. This method was originally brought to us by Professor F. Kunze of Berlin University in 1926 and it

was then called “Method of catalog.” In 1958, an American scientist, C. Whiting further worked on this and

improved upon it, thereby renaming it as “Focal Objects Method” as we know today.

4

Method of Focal Objects - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_of_focal_objects11 | P a g e

Conclusion

What these theories, model and methods forces us is to think and consider different and diverse options

and consider them while doing planning and project solutioning in order to achieve project outcomes. This

breaks our constricted thought process and enables us to use innovative options to achieve goals.

If we look at all of these models, we might be forced to think why we need to be doing what I am

proposing and what are the critical success factors involved?

We are doing this in order to explore and discover new ways of doing projects, out of the box, open and

receptive, innovative and inventive, improvise and every time, map it back to project management.

The first critical success factor will be use of refreshing new methods which have been well thought of

and well applied in case of project management, in response to the massive transformation of business

environment which we are facing, to be able to provide next generation of products and services. The

inventive model will play a very crucial role here, to be able to truly deliver project outcomes which will

establish continued business benefits.

The second critical success factor will be ability to use inventive models, both backwards and forwards to

be able to consider various options in shorter time frame using simulation models based on these

inventive concepts, to provide list of ranked outcomes which can be zeroed upon to best satisfy end

objectives.

The third critical success factor will be differentiation, which projects done using inventive models will

provide, over the run of the mill commoditized projects, to be able to deliver genuinely unique products

and services.

The fourth critical success factor will be we would have considered new ways of doing projects, solution

approach, problem solving, constraints handling, assumptions testing, etc., The level of ideation and

option generation, I can foresee working with mission to apply these methods to new ventures, start-up

projects, with an aim to make them a success is our view.

In response to the planning, the work breakdown structure will be the first point wherein it will be clearly

depicted, next is our project solution approach and then deliverables list should reflect it. The project

scheduling casted in scheduling software will also clearly reflect it.

In the end, I have tried to review four key inventive models and see which ones are closest fit for

application in project management. I felt the models which I have chosen to cover in this paper are good

12 | P a g e

and established candidates, however, I am aware that, someone else may try and explore some other

model, which is perfectly fine, and this would only help in bringing about diversity of thoughts to the table.

Last but not the least, I would like to take this opportunity, to wholeheartedly acknowledge and thank each

of reference sources and their authors whom I have referred in this paper.

About the authorhttp://in.linkedin.com/pub/vikas-dubey/a/7a0/a99

References

Reference 1

G.S. Altshuller, “Theory of inventive problem solving” –

Hatchuel, A. and Weil, B., “A new approach of innovative design: an introduction to C-K theory.” Proceedings of the international conference on engineering design (ICED’03), 2003, Stockholm, Sweden, pp. 109–124.

http://www.triz-journal.com/whatistriz, with special thanks to the author of Triz,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIZ

http://www.sitsite.com/

Reference 2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphological_analysis_(problem-solving)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Zwicky

http://redruthproductdesign.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/5a-ideas-morphological-analysis2.jpg and also http://www.swemorph.com/ma.html

Reference 3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-K_theory

Reference 4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_of_focal_objects

13 | P a g e