People Skills: Ensuring Project SuccessA Change Management Perspective

Author(s): Robert E. Levasseur

Source: Interfaces, Vol. 40, No. 2 (March-April 2010), pp. 159-162
Published by: INFORMS
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40599437
Accessed: 06-02-2016 20:41 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40599437?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

INFORMS is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Interfaces.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 161.23.84.10 on Sat, 06 Feb 2016 20:41:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Interfaces

infjEEEL

Vol. 40, No. 2, March-April2010, pp. 159-162

ISSN0092-21021EissN1526-551X110 14002 10159

Hi

DOI i0.l287/inte.l090.0473
@ 2010 INFORMS

PeopleSkills:EnsuringProjectSuccessA ChangeManagementPerspective
RobertE. Levasseur

St.Augustine,
Florida32084,robert.levasseur@waldenu.edu
WaidenUniversity,

This is one in a seriesof articlesabout the mosteffective

models,methods,and processesof organization
intent
a disciplinethatoffersmuchto professionals
(OD), also knownas changemanagement,
development
OD includesthe
on solvingreal-worldproblems.Because it is based on a systemicview of organizations,
to implement
thesuccessor failureofefforts
determine
wholeuniverseoffuzzypeopleissuesthatincreasingly
flawlesstechnicalsolutions.Thisarticleexaminesprojectsuccessrates,suggestsreasonsforproject
otherwise
theodds ofprojectsuccessbased on establishedchange
and providesideas fordramatically
failure,
improving
and processes.
principles
management
development.
organization
leadership;changemanagement;
Keywords:projectmanagement;

often do projects fail? According to

of inforRubinstein(2007), almost two-thirds
mationtechnology(IT) projectsfail. This startling
statistic
mightnot apply acrosstheboard;however,
evena projectfailurerateofhalfthisnumberwould
seemto be too higha priceto pay forimplementing
needed organizational
changes.Shouldn'torganizations striveforzero defectsin projectmanagement,
and service
as manydo in productmanufacturing
delivery?

Causes of Project Failure

What are the causes of these projectfailures?Are

or are they
due to technicalproblems,
theyprimarily
intractable
rootedin peopleissues,suchas seemingly
resistanceto change?In a studyof 42 IT projects,
McManusand Wood-Harper
(2007)foundthat"technicalcausal factorsaccount(ed)for35 percentof the
projectfailurerate" (p. 39). The remaining65 percentwerebecauseofwhattheytermed"management
causalfactors"
(p. 39)- in otherwords,peopleissues.
WhentheyconsiderIT-enabledchange,manypeople
see managers'and IT specialists'beliefin the "magical power of IT" as the rootcause of projectfailure (Markusand Benjamin1997,p. 55). Thatproject
failureratesremainhigh,althoughthismagic bullet theoryof changeis widelyunderstoodand does
but not surprising
notappearto work,is disturbing

Techwithchangemanagement.
to someonefamiliar
nical specialistsand managers,althoughtheymight
tendtohaveveryfewprohavethebestofintentions,
cesses or toolsto use to managethehumanside of
Therefore,
theyrelyon their
projectimplementation.
skills to facilicommonsense and communication
tatechange.Sadly,theseare generallynotenoughto
ensurethe success of technical(e.g., IT-enabled)or
nontechnical
projects.
To address these nontechnicalcausal factorsin
projectfailure,we need to knowwhat theyare. An
analysisofthreestudiesofprojectfailure(Kappelman
et al. 2006,Keil et al. 1998,Zwikael and Globerson
2006) suggestssome answers.Table 1 shows 10 of
causal factorsmennontechnical
the highest-ranked
tionedin thesethreestudies.The studiesarecodedA
forKappelmanet al. (2006,p. 33), B forKeil et al.
(1998,p. 78),and C forZwikaeland Globerson(2006,
p. 3435).
Giventhesecauses,whatcan we do to dramatically
improvetherateofprojectsuccess?The answeris to
and processestoaddress
use changemanagement
principles
reasonsforproject
theseand relatednontechnical
failure,as
do
each
in
day when
development
specialists organization

answer
Althoughthistheoretical
change.
they
facilitate
is simple,itis nota verypracticalsolutiontotheproblem,giventhe timeand expenserequiredto master
evenforthoseinclined
theartofchangemanagement,
to do so. So whatcan else can we do?

159

This content downloaded from 161.23.84.10 on Sat, 06 Feb 2016 20:41:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Success
LevasseunPeopleSkills:Ensuring
Project
2010INFORMS
Interfaces
40(2),pp.159-162,

160

Nontechnical
causalfactor

ABC

1
Lackoftopmanagement
support
Failure
togainusercommitment
3
leadteam
cannot
manager
effectively
Project
4
forcontrolling
thechange
Noprocess
intheprocess
5
notinvolved
Stakeholders
tomanage
enduserexpectations
Failure
8
Weakteammember
commitment
instakeholder
9
communication
Breakdown
inmeetings 10
Lackofkeystakeholder
participation
Conflict
between
userdepartments

1
2
4
5

2
12
5
15
14
9

11

failTable1: Thistableshows10 majornontechnical

reasonsforproject
ureandtheir
as eachstudy
ranks
them.
importance

The practicalsolutionis twofold.First,line managers, projectmanagers,and others involved in

new methodsmust understandthe
implementing
dramatic
potentially
impactthatchangemanagement
principlesand practicescan have on projectsuccess,
thusmotivating
themtoacquirenew soft(i.e.,people)
skillsand behavedifferently.
Second,theymustlearn
how to apply some simpleand elegantapproaches
to facilitating
changefromthe changemanagement
toolkit.
The purposeofthisarticleis to offer
expert's
into
both
areas to providemanagerswith
insights
both the motivationand tools theyneed to ensure
theirprojects'success.

The PotentialforImproving
ProjectSuccess

Trainedas a physicist,
KurtLewin was one of the
mostinfluential
of the earlysocial scientistsin the
fieldofgroupbehavior.He contributed
manyimportanttheoriesand tools fororganizational
changeto
thefieldofOD-changemanagement,
includinggroup
dynamics,forcefieldanalysis,a three-step
change
model(i.e.,unfreezing,
and
and
moving,
refreezing),
the action researchmethodology.
To professionals
in OD-changemanagement,
theinnovativecontributions of Kurt Lewin are as importantas those of
AbrahamMaslow,who developedthe hierarchy
of
needs theory,and Douglas McGregor,who subsequentlydevelopedTheoryX - TheoryY based on
Maslow'stheory,
are to managers.
In his article"GroupDecisionand Social Change"
on an earlygroundbreak(Gold1999),Lewinreported
in
behavior
conductedin the
ing experiment group

a groupofworkerswhochoseas a groupto
mid-1940s;
showed almostimmediimprovetheirperformance
20 percentin
ofapproximately
atelyan improvement
with
theiravertheirlevel of productivity
compared
This
to
the
level
of
productivity
prior
experiment.
age
also
illustrated
the
of
experiment
permanency group
remained
decisions;thegroup'saverageperformance
at thesame highleveland showedno signofdiminishingninemonthsafterthestartoftheexperiment.
in groupbehaviorspeakstoa
Thisearlyexperiment
withwhichwe areall familiar
generalphenomenon
the power of groupsto achievea goal when their
to actin unison.Whatimpact
membersaremotivated
this
of
might power groupshave ifwe couldharness
it to improvetheodds ofprojectsuccess?
To answerthisquestion,letus imaginethatproject
managersare able to successfully
apply the change
in
described
the nextsection
managementconcepts
to theirprojects.Assumingthatchangemanagement
methodsdirectlyaddress about two-thirds
of the
causes of IT projectfailure(i.e., the nontechnical
causalfactors),
thentheirsuccessful
applicationcould
IT
the
rate
of
dramatically
improve
projectsuccess
(Table2).
As Table 2 shows, the effectiveapplicationof
change managementmethodshas the potentialto
improvethecurrent
projectsuccessrate(i.e.,about33
as
much
as 200 percent.Even if only50
percent)by
effective
on
percent
average,theuse of changemanagementmethodsby projectmanagerscould double the success rate of IT-enabledprojects.Given
thehigheffectiveness
ofchangemanagement-enabled
a
which
based on perprojects,
roughapproximation
sonal experiencewould estimateat well above 80
percent,thislevel of projectsuccess(i.e.,67 percent)
wouldseemmorethatreasonabletoexpectforchange
IT-enabledprojects.
management-augmented
success
Change
management ITproject
effectiveness
rate(%)
(%)
0
25
50
75
100

33
50
67
83
100

inIT
Improvement
successrate(%)
project
0
50
100
150
200

Table2: The data showthe potential

impactof changemanagement
methods
onit project
success.

This content downloaded from 161.23.84.10 on Sat, 06 Feb 2016 20:41:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Levasseun PeopleSkills:EnsuringProjectSuccess
Interfaces
2010INFORMS
40(2),pp. 159-162,

project
management Non-IT
Change
successrate(%)
effectiveness
(%)
0
25
50
75
100

161

innon-IT
Improvement
successrate(%)
project
0
12
25
38
50

67
75
83
92
100

Table3: The data showthe potential

Impactof changemanagement
success.
methods
onnon-IT
project

if we assume that the currentrate of

Similarly,
is twiceas high fornon-ITprojects
success
project
theoppor(i.e.,67 percent)as forIT-enabledprojects,
in
a
for
majorimprovement projectsuccess
tunity
methodsis
becauseof applyingchangemanagement
stillquitesubstantial
(Table3).
We hope that this analysismakes a convincing
enoughcase forthe effectthatchangemanagement
methodscan have on projectsuccessthatitmotivates
lineand projectmanagersto learnmoreaboutthese
we examinesomesimple
methods.In thenextsection,
motivated
that
these
ideas
changeagents
yetelegant
mightuse to improvetheirrateof successfulproject
implementation.

ChangeManagementIdeas for
ImprovingProjectSuccess

Tryingto distilla rich set of change management

principles,processes,and practicesinto a few key
themis challengguidelinesthatdo notoversimplify
these
to
is
our
demystify
ing.Nevertheless, objective
human
side
of
the
toolsformanaging
veryimportant
so thatprojectmanagers
anyprojectimplementation
and otherchangeagentswithlittleor no formalODwill choseto use them
training
changemanagement
and (or) engageOD-changemanagement
professionthis sectioncontainsa
als forassistance;therefore,
of fivefundamental
concepts
underlying
description
in layman'sterms.
written
ofchangemanagement,
ImplementationBegins on Day 1. Viewing a
as a sequentialprocessin whicha small
changeeffort
indepenstrategy
groupdevelopsan implementation
and triesto sellitto
dentofothersin theorganization
affected
individualsin theorganization
by thechange
A broader,
forfailure.
is an almostcertainprescription

more systemicview of changeis crucialto project

success.Viewingchangefroma systemic
perspective
means acknowledgingand embracingthe interconnectednessofthepeople affected
by thechange,and
an
that
for
implementation
strategy
arguesstrongly
in
of stakeholders the
emphasizesearlyinvolvement
in
lieu
of
top-down,
one-waycommunicaprocess,
stakeholder
meansofinfluencing
tion,as theprimary
attitudesand behaviorat theonsetoftheproject.
People Support What They Help to Create. I
wislearnedthislittlepearl of changemanagement
I
dom froma verywise professorwhen was pursuing a master'sdegreein management(Levasseur
2007).It succinctly
capturestheessenceofthechange
that
process namely, thebestway to overcomeresistanceto changeis to involvepeople affected
by it in
thechangeprocessas earlyand oftenas possible.This
corollaryto the firstpoint about beginningimplementationon the firstday of the projectprovidesa
is such an important
rationaleforwhy involvement
elementin an effective
changestrategy.
Two-WayCommunicationIs Essential.Although
in and of itselfto ensure the effecnot sufficient
honofa changeproject,
tiveimplementation
regular,
crucial
communication
is, nonetheless,
est,two-way
to the success of a changeeffort.
Everyoneknows
thatmanagersdo notlikesurprises.The same is true
foremployeesand otherstakeholdersin a change
At the outset,effective
effort.
two-waycommunication engagesboth the senders(i.e., projectleaders)
diain a meaningful
and receivers(i.e.,stakeholders)
the
of
and
vision
the
about
proposed
scope
logue
change effortand its organizationaland personal
therebyreducingnaturalresistanceto
implications,
This
exchange
happensbecausea meaningful
change.
sendsa clearmessage
(i.e.,two-waycommunication)
thatthepeopleaffected
bythechange,and theirideas
thelevelof
areimportant;
and feelings,
thus,itfosters
stakeenable
to
needed
and
involvement
engagement
and
their
concerns
holdersto address
satisfactorily
to the project.As
develop a sense of commitment
progresses,active,two-way
projectimplementation
and progress
vital
information
communication
keeps
and
milestones
aboutprojectgoals,objectives,
flowing
thesystemaffected
by thechangeeffort.
throughout
and
the notionthatthe stakeholders
This reinforces

This content downloaded from 161.23.84.10 on Sat, 06 Feb 2016 20:41:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Levasseur. PeopleSkills:EnsuringProjectSuccess
2010INFORMS
Interfaces
40(2),pp. 159-162,

162

projectleaders are engaged in a jointundertaking,

whichfostersthekindof concernforprojectsuccess
solve problems
necessaryto addressand collectively
whentheyarise.
AttendanceIs Not Agreement.Manyprojectmanwithtacitagreeat meetings
agersmistakeattendance
with
ment
projectgoals. Hence, theyfeel justified
forfollow-upactionsto
in assigningresponsibility
because thistradiattendees.
Unfortunately,
meeting
behaviortendsto cretionaltop-downmanagement
to change,it is
and increaseresistance
ate resentment
to meeting
tasks
oftencounterproductive.
Assigning
it generattendeesdoes not guaranteecommitment;
In
combehavior.
the
contrast,
allyproduces opposite
mittedpeople volunteerforimportant
assignments.
This makes the task of projectleaders who begin
in the processfrom
activelyengagingstakeholders
day one oftheprojectmucheasier.Forthem,itis sufand watchas committed
ficient
to ask forvolunteers
deterand empoweredmeetingattendeesvoluntarily
minewho will takeresponsibility
forcompleting
key
actionitems.
CollaborationIs the Key. In case you have not
principlethatdisyet figuredout the fundamental
effective
efforts
fromless successtinguishes
change
ful ones, it is collaboration.
Collaborationis essential to the effective
applicationof the wide arrayof
available to ODchangemanagementinterventions
If you believein
professionals.
changemanagement
thepowerofcollaboration
teamwork,
(aka
participation,collectiveeffort,
etc.)to harnessthe
cooperation,
inherent
powerofgroups,thenyou understand
why
mustbeginon day one,whypeople
implementation
supportwhattheyhelpto create,whytwo-waycommunication
is essentialto effective
change,and why
commitment
is a benefitthatengaged,empowered
stakeholders
ratherthansomething
thatproject
offer,
leadersdemandofthem.
Lewin'sModel Shows theWay.Althoughthefive
fundamental
changemanagement
conceptsdescribed
above can, if embracedand applied, improvethe
effectiveness
of any prospectivechangeagent,they
workbestwhentheyareseenas elementsofa change
processor model. The most simpleand elegantof
these is Kurt Lewin's three-stepchange model(Gold 1999,Levunfreezing,
moving,and refreezing

asseur 2001). When viewed throughthe lens of

Lewin'smodel,thesefiveconceptsaddressthethree
phases of change directly.In my experienceas a
of planned,systemic
projectleader and a facilitator
and ensure
to
the
best
facilitate,
initiate,
way
change,
unfreeze
is
to
success
(1)
by engagingstakeproject
holdersearlyand activelyin a collaborative
dialogue
and
sustain
initiate
to
about the change effort;
(2)
the highlevel of two-way
movementby continuing
communication,
joint action planning,and shared
to a higher
and (3) to refreeze
effort;
implementation
level of individualand organizational
performance
to
the commitment
and satisfaction
by reinforcing
for
projectsuccessbased on continuedcollaboration
thedurationoftheprojectand beyond.

Conclusion
In thisarticle,
we examinedprojectsuccessrates,sugand providedideas
reasons
forprojectfailure,
gested
the
odds
of projectsucfordramatically
improving
cess based on establishedchangemanagement
printhiswill encourage
ciples and processes.Hopefully,
managersand projectleadersin all arenasto embrace
changemanagementmethodsand set muchhigher
forprojectsuccess.
expectations
References
Gold, M, ed. 1999. TheCompleteSocialScientist:A KurtLewinReader.
AmericanPsychologicalAssociation.Washington.DC.
Kappelman, L. A., R. McKeeman, L. Zhang. 2006. Early warning
Systems
signs of IT projectfailure:The dominantdozen. Inform.
Management23(4) 31-36.
Keil, M., P. E. Cule, K. Lyytinen,R. C. Schmidt.1998. A framework
foridentifying
softwareprojectrisks.Comm.ACM 41(11) 76-83.
Levasseur, R. E. 2001. People skills: Change managementtoolsLewin's change model. Interfaces
31(4) 71-73.
Levasseur, R. E. 2007. People skills: MarketingOR/MS- A people
37(4) 383-384.
problem.Interfaces
Markus, M. L., R. I. Benjamin. 1997. The magic bullet theoryof
IT-enabled transformation.
Sloan ManagementRev.38(2) 55-68.
McManus, J.,T. Wood-Harper.2007. Understandingthe sources of
informationsystemsprojectfailure.ManagementServices51(3)
38-13.
Rubinstein,D. 2007. Standish Group report: There's less development chaos today. SoftwareDevelopmentTimes (March 1).
RetrievedAugust 10, 2009,http://www.sdtimes.com/content/
article.aspx?ArticleID=30247.
Zwikael, O., S. Globerson. 2006. From critical success factorsto
critical success processes. Internat.J. ProductionRes. 44(17)
3433-3449.

This content downloaded from 161.23.84.10 on Sat, 06 Feb 2016 20:41:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions