Content uploaded by Robert Prieto
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Robert Prieto on Sep 18, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
“Flows” in Large Complex Projects
Key Points
A simple transformational view is no longer adequate in considering large complex projects
“Transformational project flows” are no longer static or predictable
In addition to “transformational project flows” we see two other types of “flows” emerge in
large complex projects – “influencing flows” and “induced flows”.
Large complex projects are not “well bounded”
Precedence’s must be reduced and work plans must facilitate contingent execution.
Tasks must be increasingly decoupled utilizing techniques such as increased
standardization (at the component and work process level) and more extensive and
comprehensive fabrication.
Large projects are not easily isolated and just as they are susceptible to changing
externalities, they too act to change the external environment
We must be cognizant of feedback loops that translate an internal project action to a new or
modified induced flow. Labor represents one such feedback loop we must be sensitive to.
Self-organization reflects a simple reality of large complex projects – central direction by a
management team is no longer practical
Project management must create context, capacities and capabilities recognizing the
delicate balance between formal and informal systems that are essential to avoid chaos on
large complex projects.
The project co-evolves with its environment and the tools of the project manager must
include a combination of positive and negative feedback loops
Temporal coupling now represents a new risk point given the various influencing flows that a
large complex project faces.
The classical theory of project management focuses on the “transformational” processes which occur in
discrete activities, strung together such that the output of one or more is the input to others. This simple
transformational view is no longer adequate in considering large complex projects.
This activity based focus, memorialized in work breakdown structures, neglects the importance of “flows” within
the project context. As we more tightly link supply chains into project processes, we begin to see some of the
flow considerations that are core in the realm of logistics as being analogs for efficient project management.
Precedence’s and unnecessary coupling of activities may harm a project’s performance in ways that may not
be evident on initial inspection. Additionally, these “transformational project flows” are no longer static or
predictable.
In addition to consideration of “transformational project flows” we see two other types of “flows” emerge in the
universe of large complex projects – “influencing flows” and “induced flows”.
A core underlying premise of classical project management theory is that projects are “bounded”. This
assumption is breached in the world of large complex projects. Rather than well defined boundary limits we
discover semi-permeable boundaries across which “influencing flows” transit, impacting the transformational
flows within the project proper. These flows arise from a multiplicity of stakeholder’s and other agents who in
turn are influenced by the project itself.
These “influencing flows” in turn interact not only with “transformational project flows” but with each other and
may give rise to “induced flows” which while often short lived in nature can be particularly turbulent and
impactful on the project.
Let’s look at each of the “flows” more closely.
Transformational Project Flows
In the prevailing theory of projects, total transformation can be decomposed into a finite set of manageable
tasks, while extensions for operations as flow would refine this notion to say that transformation flows are
distinct from task operations. Executing each task in an optimal manner and in an optimal sequence optimizes
overall project execution according to prevailing theory while flow theory would somewhat modify this to say
optimal task execution must include optimal process flows in order to optimize overall project execution. In this
important extension to the prevailing theory of projects, lining up a series of tasks is not enough. We must
focus on and provide for the “transformational project flows” that shape and couple the various tasks.
Flow and value creation extensions to the classical theory of projects add additional framework elements such
as a focus on reducing lead times (timely decision making for example) and process and flow time variability
and the notion of the owner and his Strategic Business Outcomes as a singular reference point for value
determination.
Many of the foundational assumptions of classical project management theory are not adequate in the world of
large complex projects and some of the implied principles (minimization of steps, parts and linkages; increased
flexibility; increased transparency) from flow and value creation take on greater importance in this world.
Standardization of systems, structures, components and work processes and de-coupling of activities that can
be undertaken independently is essential. Precedence’s must be reduced and work plans must facilitate
contingent execution.
Management information must include information on how the output of a preceding task will flow to the
subsequent task and how outputs will flow onwards. These flows have characteristics with respect to whether
they are planned or contingent; when they will actually occur and whether there are any buffering mechanisms
to optimize overall project flows. The nature and timing of these flows will be shaped increasingly on a dynamic
basis and as such project execution must include a contingent capability to redirect and retime various flows or
act to restore already influenced flows to an optimal state, recognizing this may be significantly different than
the original transformative plan.
This contingent execution requires increased awareness of actual or potential direct or indirect coupling such
as what can happen when flows are coupled by second or third order constraints (constraint coupling).
A key strategy to manage this inherent complexity is through a systematic de-coupling of activities that can be
undertaken independently. On one large complex project, overall schedule was improved by 20% through a
conscious decoupling of major elements of work that had previously been bundled to “simplify” project
execution. The law of unintended consequences was clearly evident.
This decoupling of major elements should also consider careful elimination of precedence’s to increase the
opportunity for contingent execution which is a reality of large project execution. This elimination of
precedence’s relieve on a careful understanding (and subsequent tracking) of the project’s numerous
underlying assumptions and a careful understanding of the minimum prerequisites for a given task or activity.
Despite best efforts, new couplings may emerge in the course of the project driven by “assumption migration”
or the effects of project disruption caused by out-of-plan flows.
Large complex projects require us to focus not only on task inputs and outputs, but importantly, on the
transformative flows between tasks. During the CAPEX phase of a project these flows are representative of the
construction process itself and the selected means and methods. To improve overall execution in the CAPEX
phase, therefore, it is necessary to expand our basis of design (BOD) to specifically include construction
related factors, preferences and choices. Consideration of factors impacting project flows is essential.
Tasks, the heart and soul of work breakdown structures, must change in numerous ways. Precedences must
be minimized, or at the very least limited and clearly understood. Tasks must be increasingly decoupled1 to
support contingent execution driven by influencing flows, utilizing techniques such as increased
standardization (at the component and work process level) and more extensive and comprehensive fabrication.
Lean2 begins the integration of traditional methods and human characteristics. System “flows” replace the pure
input/output measures of traditional project management. Lean project management provides flexibility in
responding to dynamic systems, moving beyond the more static constructs of traditional PM theory but
potentially introducing risks as capabilities and capacities are narrowed to reduce waste and internal variability.
Large complex projects require a higher degree of resilience.
Influencing Flows
Large complex projects are not well bounded, at least not as well as classical project management theory
would have you believe. Large stakeholder influences; emergence of new outcomes and stakeholders over
extended delivery timeframes and lifetimes; and the sheer number of ex-project inputs and assumption drivers,
all act to create a semi-permeable boundary across which there are many informational and “influencing flows”.
This porous project boundary, combined with the self-defining and emergent nature of the project,
characterizes the non-deterministic system which best describes large complex projects.
Influencing flows can act to shape the transformative project flows we have come to know in classical PM
Theory and which are described above. These influencing flows arise from flows crossing the semi-permeable
project boundary as well as the interaction between two or more transformative flows present within the project
context. This is a key point, large projects are not easily isolated and just as they are susceptible to changing
externalities, they too act to change the external environment that they affect. I have wrestled with whether to
describe these boundaries as fully permeable or semi-permeable and have opted for the later since certain
governance regimes will likely limit full permeability as it relates to these externalities.
Influencing flows change the nature of tasks to be undertaken as well as how the various process flows define,
interact with and drive forward the transformation process. This is significantly different than classical theory’s
execution of each task in an optimal manner with optimal process flows. This leads to an important recognition
that planning activities must address two key elements:
Tasks, including the work flows within those tasks
Flows, including transformative (or systems) flows between tasks as well as new flows induced by
these influencing flows
Strategic Business Outcomes (SBO) become more important than requirements in achieving ultimate success.
In some instances projects may be faced with emergent SBOs especially when “influencing flows” cross this
semi-permeable project boundary over an extended project timeframe.
The semi-permeable boundaries of large complex projects represent an important management frontier to be
posted with sentries on the lookout, giving visibility to flows across this boundary and identifying emergent
outcomes. Many good things happen at this frontier including exchange of information and knowledge as we
engage stakeholders and valuable insights on outcome affecting factors. But not all things crossing this frontier
!"###$"%####
&'($&)*%&+)
,#-#"#"#%#%.
"/#"0#1-##
-"-#.
are necessarily reinforcing of the desired project outcomes or the efficiency and effectiveness of the various
sets of ongoing transformational flows in the project.
Flows crossing this frontier may influence, sometimes significantly, the project’s well planned transformation
processes. These flows and the other exchanges across the project frontier may be unknown and uncontrolled.
Influencing flows, such as those described, act to shape transformative flows and may arise not only from flows
crossing this semi-permeable project boundary but also as a result of the interaction between two or more
transformative flows present within the project context.
Induced Flows
The influencing flows arising from a multiplicity of stakeholders was shown in the preceding figure and the
eddies they create in the planned transformative flows are also shown together with a new flow which arises
from this interaction between flows. These eddies and new flows represent “induced flows” that can arise
suddenly, be highly disruptive, and disappear just as suddenly.
Flows that we define in complexity theory are complemented by stronger stakeholder derived influencing flows
and, importantly, this new construct of induced flows. Stakeholder influences3 now define a surrounding and
interacting ecosystem that includes stakeholder-stakeholder interactions4 but also one which the project acts
on and influences through so-called “ambassadors”. While not predictable, perturbations in flows, such as
what we observe in eddies and induced flows, become signatures of the direction of likely system
emergence. Our predictive project efforts employing big analytics may be better aimed at flow patterns,
especially those crossing the semi-permeable project boundary, and the broader externalities driving and
shaping them.
Flows now become essential focal points in large complex projects with increased emphasis on perturbations
(and potential points of perturbation). Flows are no longer limited to the transformational flows within and
between tasks. Influencing flows, across the project’s semi-permeable boundary, and the induced flows5 they
may create take on significant importance.
The project acts equally on its environment as the environment acts on the project. We must be cognizant of
feedback loops that translate an internal project action to a new or modified induced flow. Labor represents one
such feedback loop we must be sensitive to.
The concept of self-organization reflects a simple reality of large complex projects – central direction by a
management team is no longer practical. Rather project management must create context, capacities and
capabilities recognizing the delicate balance between formal and informal systems that are essential to avoid
chaos on large complex projects. The project co-evolves with its environment and the tools of the project
manager must include a combination of positive and negative feedback loops such as those shown in the
preceding figure to guide the project to its final state. Proper application of these loops rely not just on
traditional command and control strategies and metrics but also knowledge gained from a learning organization
2"3$4##&)5%#"%%
##$6""
#"#7&3).(6#
$#8$##-"
.
#&)-%-5##7.
!####$#8$#
##%9%##.
:'--;%"--#%$
:
and the careful monitoring of project frontiers by “sentries” looking out for new flows, changes in existing flows,
and assumption migration); environmental scouts seeking out new flow drivers, emerging flows, and emerging
actors; and engagement of stakeholders through almost ambassadorial activities. There is a need “to look for
patterns and for points of change which can trigger off new patterns” and creating new induced flows.
Tasks may become coupled and entangled and task limits may change and at times become open ended.
They are no longer discrete and bounded.
Other Thoughts
Time is no longer just a pacing and synchronization point. It is now something that is increasingly valued;
extended beyond what we may encounter in more traditional projects; and a tool to gauge and control the
various flows the project experiences. Temporal coupling now represents a new risk point given the various
influencing flows that a large complex project faces.
Risks which previously fell in the “white space” between tasks now offer greater opportunities of appearing as
task flows are stretched, compressed, twisted and reconfigured. Hidden constraints now offer greater
opportunities for “spooky action” at distance as work execution patterns change in initially unplanned ways.
About the Author
<%##2-=.>
%?""""0#%
-"".
Although the author and NAC have made every eort to ensure accuracy and completeness of the advice or
information presented within, NAC and the author assume no responsibility for any errors, inaccuracies, omissions or
inconsistencies it may contain, or for any results obtained from the use of this information. The information is provided
on an “as is” basis with no guarantees of completeness, accuracy, usefulness or timeliness, and without any
warranties of any kind whatsoever, express or implied. Reliance on any information provided by NAC or the author is
solely at your own risk.
@