Projects and Operations: An Amicable SeparationLearn Management Articles on management-info.biz. Projects and Operations: An Amicable Separation article will help answer your questions on Management Articles.We at management-info.biz specialize in Management Articles. Management Articles at management-info.biz provides the most up to date news and articles. If you have questions please do not hesitate to contact us.
Projects and Operations are quite distinct sets of activities that, when mixed, can cause unnecessary havoc with the management of each. They have different resourcing requirements, require different management styles and have different objectives. Projects are time-constrained and initiate change. Operations are ongoing and suffer change, sometimes unwillingly... This short paper is a brief overview of the definitions, descriptions and characteristics of each set of activities. And concludes with some recommendations for avoiding the worst of 'projerations'... Definitions Projects Most project management approaches define a project using terms such as: * a series of interrelated activities, * with a specific goal or end result, and * having specific start and finish dates. Operations So we can broadly say that anything else is operations; upkeep activities or incremental improvement. Three key indicators that show when a set of activities is not a project (ie. is operations) are: * if there is no commitment to move ahead, or * if the set of activities doesn't have an end date, or * if the set of activities does not have a measurable goal. Descriptions Operations Operations can be described in terms of business functions or activities and business processes. Business functions are those groups of competence that are needed for the healthy functioning of the organisation. They can be decomposed into business activities that are usually, but not always, encapsulated by an organisational unit. For example, human resource management, the activity, is partly encapsulated by the Human Resources Department. Business processes, on the other hand, describe how the organisation adds value. They are triggered from outside the organisation and finish with the organisation delivering something of value. The two most common diagrams for these views are the org-chart and process maps. Projects Projects are described by their scope, the requirements they are expected to meet and the resources required to meet them. They have a deadline, milestones, stakeholders, steering groups, a budget, and change and communication plans. They are initiated, planned, executed and completed. They add value for the stakeholders, who may or may not be outside the organisation. The most common diagrams to help describe projects are: a GANTT chart for resource allocation, and PERT chart for critical path analysis. Characteristics of Projects and Operations Activities grouped to form Projects or Operations are easily identifiable as each has its own set of characteristics. Generally speaking they are mutually exclusive though this is not always the case. The table below outlines these in a comparative manner so that, in the first instance, the distinction can be made. Operations * Repetitive * Continuous * Deals with the Present * Evolutionary change * Equilibrium * Suffer change * Pre-defined objectives * Stable resources * Stability * Efficiency * Roles * Security and Predictability Projects * Unique * Finite * Deals with the Future * Revolutionary change * Disequilibrium * Initiate change * Objective to be defined * Transient resources * Flexibility * Effectiveness * Goals * Risk and Uncertainty From the lists above, if a project is not actively seeking to initiate change in operations, then it is, in effect, a set of operational activities; improving the situation incrementally. Operational activities do not, in general, cause disequilibrium. It is the operational activities that are destabilised. By the project. Not the other way round. Though there are plenty of examples of operations destabilising projects... But this is a resistance to change rather than the initiation of change. There is, however, a link between the two. And successful projects need to have this made explicit. To take the example of change. Projects are change efforts. But managing change is part of an operational manager's responsibility. Projects identify the change required to move operations into the future. Operational managers then manage the introduction of those changes into their domains so that the new operational practices are different from those before the project. Conclusion Problems with mixing Projects and Operations: If a project begins to have characteristics that resemble those of operations, it is probably a good idea to bring it to an end. And ensure the handover in a timely and professional manner. Equally, if a project has within its plan elements that involve operations, it is probably better to take them out. Otherwise there is a risk that operational management falls to the project manager. So we need to be wary of 'projects' that are: * Uniquely repetitive, * Continuously finite, * Projecting the present into the future, * Evolutionary rather than revolutionary, * Are stable, efficient and role based, and * Secure. None of these bear the characteristics of a project. Rather they are a mixture of both. They become 'projerations', and are generally unsatisfying for everyone working on them. Overcoming the Mixing: One way to overcome the mixing of projects and operations is to ensure that operational activities are properly resourced. The absence of correct operational resourcing often leads to projects being 'loaded-up' with operational tasks such as report generation, cube building, process mapping, etc. The people working on the projects know this and react, causing tension with their operational activities. The solution? Ensure that operational activities are correctly resourced. And don't, as far as possible, move unresourced operational activities into projects.
|
More Articles:1. Improve Your Bottom Line, Benefit From Employee Ideas Customers want our products and services to be better, delivered faster, and produced less expensively. This means that everything we do needs to be improved. To stay competitive in this world we have to be better then we were last year and we should be prepared to be better next year. We must continuously improve. Engaged employees can show us the way. All employees can be thinking about how to reduce costs, looking at safety issues, reducing wastes and improving the environment, while at the … 2. Managing with Authority and Democracy By Mark Meshulam If you watch closely, you will eventually notice that people who manage the work of others tend to fit into one of two categories: authoritarians or democrats.The authoritarians, as you would expect, manage by telling others what to do. They are not big on eliciting opinions of their subordinates, and not coincidently, their superiors usually treat them in much the same way.They get whipped like dogs, then they turn around and whip their charges like smaller dogs. Information and direction flo… 3. Why Training Fails Sometimes when I conduct my workshop on Effective Meetings, one of the participants will ask, 'Where's my boss?'And I say, 'Your boss claimed to be an expert on holding effective meetings.'Then the person laughs. 'My boss needs to attend your workshop more than anyone in our company. And without our manager's support, no one will use this.'This is bad because if no one uses the ideas presented in a workshop, the client will conclude that training doesn't work. And then the company might abandon … 4. Saying One Thing, Doing Another... By Colin Shaw This week I was asked to speak at an internal conference for a bank. The subject was how to build a great customer experience. However, the reality was somewhat different to the title. I sat listening to speaker after speaker - all coming along with the same message “how can we stuff more products into our clients and achieve our targets”.As I sat there I started to think, why do people say one thing and do another? Do they really think people are that stupid that they cannot see the conflict … |
||||
