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. Asset management journal guide Diligently managed assets of a business organization can make a lot of difference in its profit percentages. Judicious control over all tangible and intangible assets of a company makes sure that there are no leaking funds in the organization and all assets are utilized at maximum capacity. An inefficient management of resources and incorrect information about the objects in a commercial establishment may lead to drainage of finances and in turn adversely affect company's performance. Realizin… 2. Is Your Workplace Suffering from Contagious Stress? We wonder how many of you might recognise this scenario? Although it happened with a male manager, it could apply to men or women. The manager we worked with had been promoted to a more senior role and was experiencing demands from all sides. He became increasingly tired, was working long hours and spending less time with his family. His overall energy dropped, anxiety levels increased, sleep was disrupted and concentration and focus diminished. He no longer took time to exercise, found himself … 3. Applying Lean Six Sigma to Service By Peter Peterka Although both Six Sigma and Lean Flow have their roots in manufacturing, it works just as effectively in service industries. Much of the U.S. economy is now based on services rather than manufacturing and many service organization managers are wondering how they can achieve the tremendous process improvement benefits of Lean Six Sigma to their service organization. Many service organizations have already begun to blend the higher quality of Six Sigma with the efficiency of Lean into Lean Six S… 4. A Man and His Razor By George Ebert It is vain to do with more what can be done with less. William of Ockham This is Ockham’s famed Razor. A shorthand version of the razor might be, “keep it simple.” When complexity is added to a relationship, process or organization without good reason, the result is usually a loss of focus, clarity and effectiveness. Roles become blurred, goals are uncertain and success is haphazard. Bureaucracies are prime violators of the principle. Clinging to management structures designed in t… |
||||
