9781420025422%2Ech2

7/28/2019 9781420025422%2Ech2

1/13

15

2 The Elements ofOrganizationalEngineering

OE is different, radically so, from the teambuilding tools and models of yesteryear.

Thats because it is based upon unique assumptions, both for building teams in

general and establishing project teams in particular.

ASSUMPTIONS OF OE

ASSUMPTION NUMBER ONE

A project team is part of a dynamic, not static, universe. A teams environment

constantly changes and influences the behavior of its parts (e.g., people) and the

team itself as an entity. A team and its individual members are open systems,

influenced by relationships with each other and their environments.This circumstance is especially true in contemporary information technology-

intensive environments, where no project is an island. A project is part of a much

greater system that influences its outcome. Even the decisions and actions of others

who are not considered stakeholders in the outcome of a project can substantially

influence performance and, ultimately, results. This influence can take the form of

a simple across-the-board budget cut or a decision to downsize and outsource specific

skills. Such externalities, to borrow from economics, can have a tremendous influ-

ence. The situation manifests itself even more as organizations adopt standardized

approaches towards managing systems development projects. On one hand suchstandardization actually increases independence by allowing, for example, mixing

and matching approaches to a limited extent. On the other hand it constrains choices

that can be made, especially when the standard becomes mandatory. The point is

that no project or person really is isolated or independent; both are part of a much

greater system. What may vary from project to project and person to person are the

degrees of isolation or independence.

ASSUMPTION NUMBER TWO

People are viewed as creatures of patterns and as having preconceived notions of

how the world operates. These notions are the result of many factors, such as values,

beliefs, experiences, and genetics. They affect how people perceive the world around

them and respond to stimuli. Over a period of time, people exhibit certain patterns,

Copyright 2003 CRC Press, LLC

7/28/2019 9781420025422%2Ech2

2/13

16 The Organizational Engineering Approach to Project Management

both in thought and action. These perceptions and actions form patterns that are

exhibited throughout the life cycle of a project.

These patterns have useful purposes. They enable us to collect data and infor-

mation and respond to them in an organized manner. They allow us to make new

discoveries when situations do not match our perceptions. They enable us to com-

municate better with peers who share our perceptions and actions.

Nevertheless, these established patterns can have harmful consequences. They

can limit our intake of data and information that bombards us, thereby limiting

our options both in cognition and action. They create behavior in the form of an

anachronism, not allowing us to respond as much as take advance action, rather than

react to stimuli in our environment. They lead to conflict, resulting from lack of

understanding of others and placing little value on the perceptions and actions of

others. All this and much more can lead to inaccurate perceptions and dysfunctional

behavior during a project. For example, a project manager may exhibit a dramatically

different style from the composite one exhibited by a team. He or she may wish to

have detailed disciplines in place while other members of the team have negative

feelings about such detail. The dividing lines can be drawn very early if either party

fails to understand the perceptions and behavior exhibited by the other.

OE enables the project manager to become aware of his or her own style and

that of others in terms of perception and behavior. Armed with this information, the

project manager can build a team that emphasizes similarities and minimizes dif-

ferences in a given context. In addition, it allows team members to learn to adapt a

style to the needs of the situation to encourage greater teaming. Hence, a persons

working style is not locked in concrete but, rather, provides the flexibility to

perceive and respond to an environment as the conditions on a project warrant

employing people with the most appropriate style to achieve the goal of a project.

ASSUMPTION NUMBER THREE

The project team is viewed as more than an assembly of people brought together to

perform a job and then disappear. Instead, a team is an object consisting of otherobjects (e.g., people) that provide a rich array of relationships that add synergy.

Since each person is an open system with relationships, an individuals participation

with others adds to the productive value of a team.

Many project teams, however, are nothing more than an assembly of experts into

a project committee. Little synergy is created from the participation of each team

member. OE requires viewing a project team as more than an assembly of individuals.

Each person contributes according to the way he or she approaches processing

information, makes decisions, and implements them. By having people with different

styles work together to achieve a common goal, output becomes greater than the sumof parts, similar to what happens when two pure metals bond to form an alloy.

ASSUMPTION NUMBER FOUR

Team and individual behavior are seen as reflections of probability, not predic-

tion. OE recognizes that each person is tied to other people and the environment.


7/28/2019 9781420025422%2Ech2

3/13

The Elements of Organizational Engineering 17

The combination of known relationships and unknown variables, therefore, does

not lend itself to perfect predictability. Over time,because of the overall regu-

larity in the environments within which an individual exists, he will exhibit a

working style.

It is virtually impossible to predict what or how a person will perform under a

specific set of circumstances over a short period of time. This is particularly true in

a project environment due to dynamic circumstances. At one moment a project moves

forward, at another moment backward. As the complexity of a project and its

environment increases, any attempt to predict human behavior from the perspective

of a snapshot of time is meaningless. Only after many snapshots over a specific

span of time can the behavior of others be anticipated based on probability, not

predictability. More variables exist than can be accounted for and a project manager

or typical team member would find it impossible to discern them all. Team members

can anticipate behavior only by examining the way others go about acquiring and

processing data and applying information when making and executing decisions,

that is, by looking at the external manifestations of human behavior.

ASSUMPTION NUMBER FIVE

People are viewed from a holistic rather than from a particularistic, fragmented

perspective. The total person, who is more than the sum of his parts (e.g., psychology,

physiology), reflects behavior. The current tendency to slice and dice humanbehavior and then extrapolate general facts (which are often assumptions about

behavior) from a handful of data adds little value from an OE perspective. Studying

one aspect of human behavior does not enable predicting the overall behavior of an

individual during any given situation (e.g., a stage in the project life cycle), especially

as it relates to information processing and decision making.

Project environments in general and project teams in particular are becoming

extremely diverse, for reasons that range from globalization, which makes it neces-

sary for people of different nationalities to work together, to the need to employ

people from various disciplines to develop information technologies. Hence, a personis more than, for example, a citizen from India or more than a system analyst. He

is a complete person with a unique set of beliefs, values, emotions, and paradigms

that cannot be sliced and diced into predictable parts. Besides, the dynamic

environment of contemporary projects is not one that is conducive to in-depth study

of human behavior. Rather, what is required is to look at the external manifestations

of human behavior in relation to information processing as well as making and

executing decisions.

ASSUMPTION NUMBER SIX

Information is viewed as the glue for binding relationships among people and

with their environments. Each relationship is based upon the qualitative character-

istics of information. How people perceive, process, and respond to information

determines and reflects a specific pattern of behavior. This combination of behavior

and response is essentially an information flow a feedback loop.


7/28/2019 9781420025422%2Ech2

4/13


Information plays a critical role, too, in self-regulation. In other words, it reflects

how well a person deals with information during changing circumstances. Not only

must an individual perceive information, but he must respond to it to maintain

equilibrium (e.g., comfortable behavior) or arrive at a new level of equilibrium (e.g.,

take an alternative approach).

All projects are exercises in human behavior. To note the obvious but sometimes

forgotten, without the participation of people a project cannot exist. How well people

participate towards achieving a goal depends on how well they communicate with

each other and process information that is communicated. All stakeholders on a

project are part of a communications system that involves a complex web of feedback

loops affecting goal-directed behavior both on an individual and team basis.

ASSUMPTION NUMBER SEVEN

People are accepted as they are. OE does not try to make black or white judgments

about a behavior pattern. It requires ascertaining a persons pattern (which reflects all

physical, psychological, emotional, social, and spiritual aspects) and configuring the

multiplicity of other styles to respond as a team more effectively to achieve a particular

goal. People can manage relationships, not individuals, to accomplish a goal. Accord-

ing to OE, the best approach is to focus on peoples core competencies, that is,

accentuate strengths and work around weaknesses. Hence, manipulating relationships

provides greater flexibility when responding to situations. Project managers and teammembers, consequently, do not have to remember 16 different typologies or have an

in-depth knowledge of psychology to understand and influence human behavior to get

results or try to change a person. Rather, they need only concern themselves with

behavior patterns in respect to information processing and decision making.

On most projects, all patterns of behavior are necessary. No one pattern is right

or wrong or good or bad. A specific behavior and its relationship vis--vis

others under specific circumstances are what matters. Each persons style exhibits

strengths and weaknesses relative to those of another person and under specific

circumstances. In addition, each style is cumulative so that by trying to dissect aperson to determine what he or she is or will be is impossible and essentially fruitless.

Instead, the best approach is to accept a persons style and provide opportunities for

that person to contribute to the success of a project.

ASSUMPTION NUMBER EIGHT

The focus is on synchronicity, that is, matching a persons style with the right task

or situation at the right moment. Through synchronicity, a persons strengths and

vulnerabilities are identified and then he is assigned to a task or teaming relationshipthat capitalizes on the former and minimizes the effects of the latter.

Synchronicity is possible only by accepting how people acquire and process

data and then make and execute decisions based upon information. The idea is to

assign people to tasks that they can best perform using the style exhibited over time.

By applying synchronicity, project managers can encourage people to participate

more willingly by satisfying their own needs and those of the project.


7/28/2019 9781420025422%2Ech2

5/13


Hence, effective project managers recognize that project team members are not

robotic. They know they cant turn a key after assigning a person to a task and expect

good performance. They realize that a person must be motivated to perform and that

drive comes from within. All project managers can do is match the style of the

person to the task under a given circumstance. They know that they cant force a

person to be different or perform differently. They realize, too, that people can only

change when they will it and exhibit the change through the way they acquire and

process data, as well as make and execute decisions.

THE FUNDAMENTALS

Keeping these assumptions or tenets in mind, it is easy to see how OE functions as

a model for engendering effective teambuilding. It does so by focusing on two areas:

information processing and behavior patterns.

INFORMATION PROCESSING

OE requires viewing teams as a relational model of objects (e.g., team members)

interacting to achieve a specific goal. Team members use information as the vehicle

to decide a course of action and approach situations in their environment. Information

serves as the fuel for enabling people to determine if action is necessary and, if so,

what is the appropriate response.This exchange of information is based on the long-standing inputprocessout-

put model shown in Figure 2.1 In this model, the sender communicates verbally or

orally to a receiver. The information goes through a process of being altered in some

manner by the sender and again by the receiver. Even during processing the infor-

mation can become altered. This alteration of the information by the sender and

receiver occurs because both use, whether intentionally or indirectly, beliefs (that

is, generalizations about their environments) and values (that is, beliefs applied in

deciding a course of action and approaching a goal) that filter information to accom-

modate a particular perspective. This filtering can lead to miscommunication andmisunderstanding.

FIGURE 2.1 The inputprocessoutput model.

Input Process Output

Values

Beliefs

Personality

Context


7/28/2019 9781420025422%2Ech2

6/13


The behaviorialists recognize the nature of the exchange of information between

the sender and the receiver. The principal theories on the transfer of messages

between two parties are value screens, cognitive dissonance theory, and the principle

of congruity.

Value screens are the set of beliefs that people hold and apply to filtering

information upon receipt or submission. These beliefs filter not just what is sent but

also its packaging.

A common example of value screens is when a person with a background in a

particular discipline manages a project. He holds certain beliefs or values that place

a higher priority on some aspects of the project over others. This manifests itself

often when a person has a particular background in, for example, building over

analysis. Certain phases of a projects life cycle become more important than others,

while some are inadequately addressed. Beliefs and values, consequently, influence

what is thought to be important or not.

Cognitive dissonance theory states that a person will avoid information that

exposes an inconsistency between what is perceived and what actually exists. In

other words, people seek congruity between belief and reality; any discrepancy is

hard to handle and, consequently, information gets filtered. People have a low

tolerance for dissonance.

Cognitive dissonance theory often manifests itself during status review meetings.

A project manager seeks to collect and assess information about the performanceof a project. What often occurs when conflict arises is that people will attempt to

resolve discrepancies of information. While resolving discrepancies provides order,

it can lead to discounting important information because people seek congruity in

their thoughts. Discounted information, especially if eventually found to be signif-

icant, can lead to erroneous decision making.

Theprinciple of congruity deals more with attitude. Under this principle, people

will be more receptive to information if they view the sender favorably; if not, then

receptivity lessens.

The principle of congruity is also exemplified during status review meetings.Data and information that conform to prevailing beliefs and values will receive

greater receptivity than ones that do not conform. As with cognitive dissonance

theory, the principle of congruity can lead to erroneous decision making by virtue

of the strong likelihood that there will be filtering of data and information.

It is easy to see, therefore, that the exchange of information is influenced by

many variables. This complexity provides the opportunity for miscommunication to

increase.

Whenever exchange of information occurs, the potential exists for miscommu-

nication among the participants. Beliefs and values will inevitably impact the mes-sage being sent and received by the participants. The bad news is that this can lead

to miscommunication. The good news is that it can result in a predictable pattern

of decision making and action taken by individuals. This is the focus of OE and is

referred to as the strategic style of the individual.


7/28/2019 9781420025422%2Ech2

7/13


BEHAVIOR STYLES

A strategic style consists of behavior that an individual consistently manifests over

a time period when responding to situations. This style (one of four that will bediscussed later) guides a person during decision making and execution. Over time,

therefore, a person can predict with high probability how another person will process

information during decision making, as well as arrive at and implement a decision

in a given situation.

It is necessary to reiterate an important point here. OE is a model of human

behavior and, consequently, will not offer 100% predictive accuracy. OE can only

deal with probabilities in terms of behavior; the number of variables in the human

equation is too many for any model to handle. That is the weakness of many

teambuilding theories. OE makes no pretense in this regard. Over time, OE capital-izes on the notion that any person will consistently exhibit a style and pattern of

behavior during decision making and when executing a decision. Recognizing such

patterns offers advantages that include:

Anticipating expected results from actions by individuals

Assigning people to tasks that are more conducive to a specific style

Determining the best approach for communicating information to people

and among each other

Determining the most appropriate style under a given set of circumstances Providing the most appropriate type of supervision for effective team

management

A strategic style is determined by two dimensions: method and mode. Method

is how a person handles the gathering and assimilation of information. A method

can be either structured or unpatterned.

A structured methodis one by which an individual either develops or applies a

framework, methodology, or guideline for gathering and assimilating information.

An unpatterned methodis just the opposite. Information is gathered and assimilatedalmost spontaneously, randomly.

An example of someone embracing a structured method is a person needing or

wanting to employ a development methodology or framework, often embodied in

the form of a computer-aided software engineering (CASE) tool, on an information

systems project. The methodology or framework provides the necessary structure to

collect and assimilate information using models. An example of a person employing

an unpatterned method is a developer who wants to collect only the minimal data

and information and then immediately start cutting code. He views a methodology

or framework as a serious constraint.Mode is how a person responds via decision making when confronting a given

situation. A mode can be either thought- or action-oriented. A thought mode is one

where a person takes an intermediate approach focused on options, evaluations, and

assessments. The person decides to delay responding to a situation as he or she

deliberates on the most appropriate response to take. An action mode is one where


7/28/2019 9781420025422%2Ech2

8/13


a person places less emphasis on delay for deliberation and instead decides to respond

rapidly to a situation.

An example of someone in the thought mode is the information technology

professional who investigates all the options before developing a system. This person

likes to perform solid feasibility analysis and look at all the design alternatives before

writing the first line of code. An example of someone in the action mode on a

development project is the individual who wants to cut code right away, to program

on the fly. This person acquires minimal information and frequently embraces

approaches such as prototyping because it satisfies a need for immediate action.

A strategic style is determined, therefore, by the relationship between mode and

method. This relationship is reflected in Table 2.1. Four strategic styles are identified:

relational innovator (RI), reactive stimulator (RS), hypothetical analyzer (HA), and

logical processor (LP). It is important to note the following general points, which

need reemphasizing, about these four strategic styles.

One, a strategic style does not ensure 100% predictability. As mentioned earlier,

a strategic style reflects certain cumulative characteristics, called patterns, of behav-

ior over a period of time.Two, a person does not necessarily have only one style. In fact, a person can

exercise varying degrees of all four strategic styles even though he has a primary

and secondary style. Most people will revert to their secondary style when the

primary one proves inadequate to handle a situation. For example, a person can be

primarily an RI with RS as a secondary style. That does not mean, however, that he

or she cannot elect to exhibit some characteristics of an HA or LP. However, an

individual will feel and appear awkward when performing outside of his primary

and secondary styles.

Three, no strategic style is right or wrong. Each style reflects a behavior that is

exhibited during decision making and subsequent implementation. Judgments about

a specific situation will reflect one or the other of the strategic styles. In given

situations or environments, a particular style can only be more effective, not neces-

sarily better, than others.

TABLE 2.1Thought vs. Action Mode Relationship

Action Reactive

Stimulator

Logical

Processor

Relational

Innovator

Hypothetical

Analyzer

Thought

Unpatterned Structures

Source: Salton, G.J., Organizational Engineering, Professional

Communications, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI, 1996. With permission.


7/28/2019 9781420025422%2Ech2

9/13


Four, an exhibited strategic style probably reflects many factors, e.g., personality

(that is, the composite emotional and behavioral characteristics exhibited by a per-

son), experience, knowledge, and training. Ultimately, the style a person exhibits is

one that he or she feels comfortable with, has employed in the past, and will use in

an effort to eliminate ambiguous information.

Five, a persons strategic style is exhibited through a combination of duration,

intensity, and application. By systematically reviewing a persons decision making

and actions taken over a period of time, a persons strategic style can be ascertained.

By looking at the intensity of the modes and methods an individual opts for, the

strategic style can be even more clearly identified and defined, especially during its

application in the real world.

Six, no strategic style is mutually exclusive. Each strategic style exhibits some

characteristics of the others. However, each one also has some distinct, salient

characteristics vis--vis others. The relationship among the strategic styles can be

reflected in a Venn diagram format, shown in Figure 2.2.

Finally, strategic styles are not genetically wired. People can adopt a different

strategic style, although with some difficulty. People adhere to what they feel com-

fortable with, especially that which has worked previously.

A profile of a persons strategic and secondary style can be mapped using a

cross-haired diagram (Figure 2.3). The cross hair is analogous to the concept of the

phase space in complexity theory. It is more conducive for determining a persons

strategic style because of the multitude of variables that comprise each style and the

nonlinear relationships among those variables. At any moment, therefore, a single

point on the phase space represents the set of variables specific to a style. Hence, a

point shifting around a phase space represents a change in the characteristics that a

person exhibits for a particular behavioral pattern, the combination of two styles.

The true value of a phase space approach is that it precludes the tendency to force

people into a category that might neatly fit.

FIGURE 2.2 Venn diagram showing style overlap.

Reactive

Stimulator

Logical

Processor

Relational

Innovator

Hypothetical

Analyzer


7/28/2019 9781420025422%2Ech2

10/13


In Figure 2.3, each bar represents a continuum of the intensity from all four

styles. For example, through testing and analysis the strategic and secondary strategic

styles may appear as shown in Figure 2.4. In this case, the person is primarily an

LP and secondarily an HA. Hence, the persons decision making and action orien-

tation would primarily be that of an LP, but he would also exhibit the characteristics

of an HA under certain circumstances.

When testing is unavailable, however, a profile can still be determined by looking

at a persons history of performance and his preferences for handling and acting

upon information. The key point in the IOPT survey is to measure the degree of

FIGURE 2.3 Generic cross hair showing style relationships. (From Salton, G.J., OrganizationalEngineering, Professional Communications, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI, 1996. With permission.)

FIGURE 2.4 Cross hair showing dual style of LPHA. (From Salton, G.J., OrganizationalEngineering, Professional Communications, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI, 1996. With permission.)

Reactive Stimulator

Hypothetical Analyzer

Relational Innovator Logical Processor

Reactive Stimulator




7/28/2019 9781420025422%2Ech2

11/13


preference. For example, if a person likes to blue sky for long periods, dislikes

structure, and acts independently to implement an idea, a profile would reflect an

RI style (Figure 2.5).

A person can exhibit behavior that is confined to using only two styles. Although

rare, a situation occurs where the profile of the person could look like one of the

four shown in Figure 2.6. In that situation, two styles have common characteristics

that get exaggerated. This exaggeration leads to focusing in one area (e.g., analysis

at the expense of action) that can be an asset or liability in a teaming environment.

This focus can be vulnerability when one of the absent styles would be more

appropriate for a certain circumstance. For example, an overemphasis on action may

prevail when detailed analysis would be a more effective response. However, it can

be an asset, too, when the situation is ideally addressed by employing the styles

available. In subsequent chapters, a detailed discussion is presented on each of the

four patterns generated by two style combinations:

RIHA

RIRS

RSLP

LPHA

CHARACTERISTICS OF A STYLEEach style generates behaviors that are common in work environments. The styles

can be compared with one another according to eight common areas of work-related

characteristics: goals, direction, supervision, organization, details, change, appreci-

ation, and progress.

Goals are ends by which activity is directed. Goals can be immediate or long

range. Goals can be specific or vague. They can also be flexible or inflexible.

FIGURE 2.5 Cross hair showing RI. (From Salton, G.J., Organizational Engineering, Pro-fessional Communications, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI, 1996. With permission.)

Reactive Stimulator




7/28/2019 9781420025422%2Ech2

12/13


Direction deals with rules. Rules can be specific or high level. Rules can also

be flexible or rigid.

Supervision deals with the managerial approach exhibited towards an employee.

The choice is whether a person prefers to be given latitude or be closely managed

while performing.

Organization pertains to structure that a person works within. The choice is

whether the person prefers to work within a tight, well-defined organization or one

that provides autonomy and discretion. Often, the difference is reflected in the levelof span of control. The narrower the span of control the greater the organizational

oversight; the wider the span of control the less oversight.

Details relate to the level of in-depth information that a person prefers to have

when conducting work. The choice is whether a person prefers much detailed

information before taking action or having just the essentials before doing so.

Change pertains to how receptive a person is towards deviations from the

established way of doing business. The choice is whether a person accepts change

or resists it.

Appreciation relates to recognition for work performed or problems identified.The choice is whether the person likes or dislikes the choice of recognition. In other

words, does it match the perceived contribution?

Progress relates to the degree of focus a person has when achieving a goal. The

choice is whether the person stays rigidly on track or gets sidetracked easily.

FIGURE 2.6 Cross hairs showing two styles. (From Salton, G.J., Organizational Engineer-ing, Professional Communications, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI, 1996. With permission.)

ReactiveStimulator

RelationalInnovator

Reactive

Stimulator

RelationalInnovator

HypotheticalAnalyzer

LogicalProcessor

LogicalProcessor

LogicalProcessor


LogicalProcessor

RelationalInnovator

RelationalInnovator

ReactiveStimulator

ReactiveStimulator




7/28/2019 9781420025422%2Ech2

13/13


CORE INGREDIENTS

Information processing and decision making are the core of OE and are reflective

of the method and mode of a particular style. Together they reflect the strategicprofile of the individual the specific combination of the strategic styles that the

individual uses in conducting life. Although a person has a strategic style, he or she

also has some degree of access to the other styles. This adaptability prevents people

from being typecast. However, people experience difficulty adopting characteristics

of other styles beyond their secondary ones.

SUMMARY

Some of the major assumptions of OE include looking at a team as a

dynamic universe, viewing a project as more than an assembly of people,

and seeing individual and team behavior as patterns exhibited over time.

OE focuses on two areas: information processing and human behavior.

For information processing, the inputprocessoutput model is used.

Cognitive dissonance theory, value screens, and the principle of congruity

influence information processing.

Behavior patterns are reflected via method and mode.

Method is how a person handles information and may be structured orunpatterned.

Mode is how a person responds via decision making when confronting a

given situation.

The four strategic styles of OE are: relational innovator (RI), reactive

stimulator (RS), hypothetical analyzer (HA), and logical processor (LP).

General points to remember:

Strategic style does not ensure 100% predictability.

A person does not necessarily have only one style.

No strategic style is right or wrong. An exhibited strategic style reflects many factors.

Documents

9781420025422%2Ech2