As projects become more complex, says Donnie MacNicol, co-ordination will become increasingly important to their success

1. September-October 2010 Construction Journal 7September-October 2010 Construction Journal 7
Project co-ordination – People issues
Regime change
As projects become more complex, says Donnie MacNicol,
co-ordination will become increasingly important to their success
o-ordination is defined by the Association for Project Management
(APM) as ‘The act of ensuring that work carried out by different
organisations and in different places fits together effectively.’
This is becoming increasingly challenging on projects through the
growing number of different parties involved in delivery, increased off-site
work, uncertainties at the interfaces between parties working together
for the first time, and the different perspectives and expectations of all
those involved.
Those accountable for project co-ordination, typically the project
management or project office function, must reflect on these challenges
and understand why they arise (e.g. embedded behaviours and cultural
norms) before deciding on what co-ordination regime should be
implemented. Ten considerations are identified below.
1. Levels of co-ordination
Projects will require different forms and levels of co-ordination. The
aspects that may have an impact upon this include pace, novelty
of solution, technical difficulty and the complexity of relationships
(especially embedded ones).
2. People engagement
Individuals have different perspectives over the level and form of
co-ordination needed – from believing it requires considerable energy
and time, to it being viewed as bureaucratic. A minimum level of
personal engagement needs to be specified.
3. Different views of success
An organisation’s objectives may provide few incentives for co-
ordinating with other parties, including concerns over sharing their
perceived unique intellectual property rights or expertise. BAA dealt
with this on London Heathrow’s Terminal 5 project by defining
success in a collective sense and embedding the need for close
working relationships within their contracts. This highlights the need
for a common set of project goals that all parties work towards.
4. Agreed expectations
The PM should ensure that questions are answered around the
‘what, where, when, why and how’ regarding the multiple hand-offs
common in complex projects. This may require organisations to
adjust how they work, e.g. the level of detail to be provided at
particular points in the design process.
5. Levels of assurance
Assurance is a sister function to co-ordination and provides senior
management with comfort that the latter is operating effectively.
Assurance can be most effective when independent to co-ordination,
thus removing conflicts of interest.
6. When expectations are not met…
Poor performance must be planned for so that all parties are clear
about the implications. This will help minimise conflict as scenarios
and associated actions will have already been identified, e.g. an
organisation that has not been provided with sufficient detail being
allowed to complete a design by a previous organisation to ensure
work is not delayed.
7. The commitment of each party
Co-ordination is not effort-free – whether providing this across a
project or within the one organisation. Each party must be clear
on the level of commitment required and plan accordingly.
Communication is a major element of this.
C
8. Understand cultural norms
A balance must be found between multiple attitudes of ‘this is the
way we do things around here’. The commonly agreed infrastructure
(e.g. systems, processes and tools) must not only fit the project but
also the collective cultures involved, e.g. organisations who are
comfortable working in a stressful, time-critical environment may
not value a co-ordination function it perceives as delaying getting
the job done.
9. Openness and trust
Few people would disagree with the aspiration to have an open and
transparent environment. Unfortunately, this means different things to
different people, therefore it is critical that the PM clearly articulates
what this means in practice, e.g. the level of supporting product
information that must be openly shared by organisations.
10.Address trust issues
Trust is inherent in the decisions people take. If trust does not exist –
often not explicitly stated as such due to the negative connotations
of the word – the person will cause delay or disruption. Identify and
discuss these underlying issues.
The upfront and open discussion of the above factors will provide a
sound framework on which an effective co-ordination function can work.
Donnie MacNicol is chair of the APM People Specific Interest Group, a
director of management consultancy Team Animation and a member of
the acumen7 executive network
donnie@teamanimation.co.uk
Related competencies include: T063, SP002
The RICS Project Management Professional Group has agreed an
MoU with the Association for Project Management to promote a
closer working relationship. Various joint initiatives are planned to
extend member knowledge as part of a continuing education and
development programme for project management professionals.
This article is an example of that closer working relationship.
For more information about the MoU, email John Parsons, RICS
Associate Director, via jparsons@rics.org
©HAAPMediaLtd/sachyn
39070_CJSeptOct2010_corr Q7 Version.qxd:CJSepOct10 12/8/10 14:21 Page 7