The Whole Is Not Equal to the Sum of the Parts
Along with the fact that the organization as a whole is becoming increasingly interconnected and interdependent, its constituent elements are striving for greater independence and autonomous choice. The new principle of forming a whole from parts is vital in creating projects, a unique way of constructing a complex structure from simpler ones (Boss & Krauss, 2022). The whole is not equal to the sum of the parts it is composed of; it is qualitatively different compared to the elements that make it up.
The example of organizational activity proves that the synergetic law is as follows (Chen & Yang, 2019). By creating a topologically correct organization from more superficial structures, it is possible to reach a new, higher level of hierarchical organization, thereby accelerating the development and strength of the whole. The whole develops faster than its constituent parts. For example, the synergistic effect within a project manifests itself through:
- transfer of know-how (the participants interacting in specific works, connecting their latest developments);
- sharing of resources (it leads to cost savings and eliminates duplication);
- the creation of advantage by coordinating the timing of individual projects;
- gain in time by dividing the work;
- gain in quality by division of work according to the best success of the participants.
An example of this principle can likewise be sales or investment synergy. It can occur when the same distribution channels are used for several goods, and the sales process is managed from a single center. Shared advertising, sales promotion, and existing reputation can all lead to more revenue and results per dollar invested. An organization is a multi-intelligent sociocultural system, a voluntary association of purposeful members who have allied to serve their interests by meeting one or another need in the environment (Cui et al., 2018). It is an instrument whose function is determined by the owner, the owner’s instrument, to achieve their profit goal.
A sound system as a whole is endowed with the possibility of choice, but its parts are deprived of this property. They function on the principles of cybernetics as a homeostatic (maintaining internal dynamic equilibrium) system, responding to information like a thermoregulator. The unsatisfactory operation of any regular system with a single mind is believed to result from insufficient information or interference in the communication channels (Buchanan, 2019).
Following the logic, the obvious solution to most problems should be to get more information and improve communication. However, if parts of the system gain consciousness and begin to make independent choices, the system will be in big trouble. Thus, it can be concluded that the parts of the system are not equal to the whole, but their functioning determines the result and flow of the process.
The More You Go Into the Details, the Less Predictable the Behavior of that Element
The most challenging issue in working on projects is their evaluation and prediction. It manifests at the very beginning when the business is trying to determine the anticipated budget and when project costs start to grow in unpredictable ways, and the deadline for completion of the work goes somewhere in the future (York et al., 2019). The particularly applicable principle is that the more one delves into the elements of the system, the less predictable the behavior of that element becomes.
Due to the lack of understanding of the reasons for this situation, numerous projects are doomed from the beginning, although attempts to find the culprit continue throughout the work and even more so afterward (Englund & Graham, 2019). From experience, it can be argued that no single project has avoided this fate, at least to some extent. Businesses tend to see the rationale for misjudgment as the low competence of the specialists involved. There are reasons for this, and professionals often give reasons.
However, the more detailed project evaluation is given at the beginning, the more the final result differs from what was intended. An example is a project to create a digital product. When a company creates a digital product, there are detailed studies of how it will affect the business and what its interface will look like, and every element of the terms of reference is detailed (Boss & Krauss, 2022). However, what happens next in the project will depend on the people involved and their ability to figure out what the result should be. Creating a new product is creating a map (an idea of the future product, project documentation, design, and program code) and a territory (the finished product).
Even in similar projects, implicit differences can be substantial, and there are even more ways for programmers and designers to solve the same problem. When designing and developing, each specialist makes thousands of decisions. It concerns the set of functions, interface, technical architecture, choice of libraries and programming style, integration schemes with external services, and scenarios of interaction with users.
It is essential to note that all major decisions are made during the creation process and often differ from the original plan (Fewings & Henjewele, 2019). Moreover, the decisions are interrelated and affect each other. Adding to this the fact that, as one moves from the original requirements to a finished product, depending on the decisions made, new problems and issues arise, like the branches and leaves of a growing tree, and it is impossible to predict in advance (Hulme et al., 2019). As a result, each project is a unique combination of skills of specific specialists, coincidences and insights, the influence of opinions of surrounding people, and peculiarities of relations in a project team, time constraints, budget, and business requirements.
The Rework Cycle
The rework cycle is a key concept to consider when developing an accurate representation of the processes involved in designing and managing complex system development programs. The quality of the work performed is a crucial determinant of the amount of rework in any given system development activity. To illustrate the impact of various parameters on the success of a system development program, it is recommended that a simplified system dynamics model be used (Liu et al., 2021).
The main point is that improving the quality of the work performed should be a priority if the program is to be carried out with minimal risk. Redesigns can cause technical risk to the program because the results of the redesign may include changes in technical parameters that invalidate certain aspects of the project (Nobles et al., 2022). The project scope definition explains the project boundaries, establishes the responsibilities of each team member, and defines procedures for verifying and approving the work performed. However, the example of the analytical systems restructuring project shows that many factors can affect the progress of a project over time. Therefore, we should pay attention to the rework cycle in the project life cycle and the factors that contribute to it. Influence of rework on the life cycle of the project:
- Loss of time.
- Higher cost of project implementation.
- Damaged reputation.
- Increased turnover among management and workforce.
- Reduced productivity.
Based on the same example, it can be concluded that overwork can occur due to the following:
- A change in the volume of work. If rework occurs because of scope, the project baseline must be changed, and changes to the project management, schedule, and resource plans must be made.
- The quality of the deliverables is inadequate. This means that the quality of the results was not satisfactory during testing.
- A change in requirements, which is essentially a change in the scope of work.
At the same time, it is false to think that rework is necessarily associated with negative aspects. As the example shows, the result of this process is optimizing business processes – developing and implementing measures to improve the company’s business processes. It is conducted based on the “as is” model description, goals, and models of effective interaction (Levy, 2018). It is necessary to evaluate each component of the process: the supplier, the recipient, the instruction, and the valuable end product for the possibility of improvement. As a result of partial or complete process re-engineering, a positive economic effect is achieved.
Emergence
Properly initiating the project means ensuring a quarter of its success, and precisely the emergence of the project is one of the most time-consuming stages. The result of this stage is a starting project, defined as a management object with its authorization. The initiation process is iterative because the clarity of the results of its tasks does not arise immediately and is accompanied by several critical decisions (Jackson, 2019).
Nowadays, it is pretty challenging to imagine a situation where the project task is taken and implemented in isolation from the development strategy, program decisions, and a thorough selection procedure. For example, the life cycle of an investment project can be observed. It is necessary to consider that the algorithm for implementing this specific task includes several phases and critical fateful moments (milestones) (Pazicni & Flynn, 2019).
The zero point of reference is the start (launch) of the project, and the final point is its closure. However, as paradoxical as it may be perceived, the launch is not a one-step event. Within it and during the first conceptual phase are several continuums, at moments of which events can develop according to opposite scenarios (Rebs et al., 2019).
The project concept approved by the project committee or the company’s first person marks the beginning of its launch. However, there is no conclusion that the project has been finally selected for the portfolio and must necessarily be implemented from the tactical perspective. Returning to the phases of the LCA, it should be noted that there are usually four phases: concept, development, implementation, and completion (Wadsworth, 2020).
Supposing one translates the project task into a procedural approach in general terms. In that case, it can be concluded that the conceptual and development phases correspond to the initiation and planning processes regarding the set of actions. In this regard, concept and emergence must be understood as the conceptual maturation phase of the project. Such a vision is essential to the organization of project activities (Kazakov et al., 2021). In the philosophical sense, the concept is the main idea, the image of the concept, and the understanding of the subject, the general idea of it. From this position, the emergence should be comprehended as visual images, models of design implementation in construction, design, and other types of design practice.
Reference List
Boss, S. and Krauss, J. (2022) ‘Reinventing project-based learning: your field guide to real-world projects in the digital age’, International Society for Technology in Education, 33(1), pp.73-79.
Buchanan, R. (2019) ‘Systems thinking and design thinking: the search for principles in the world we are making’, She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 5(2), pp.85-104.
Chen, C. H. and Yang, Y. C. (2019) ‘Revisiting the effects of project-based learning on students’ academic achievement: a meta-analysis investigating moderators’, Educational Research Review, 26, pp.71-81.
Cui, C. et al. (2018) ‘Review of studies on the public–private partnerships (PPP) for infrastructure projects’, International Journal of project management, 36(5), pp.773-794.
Englund, R. and Graham, R. J. (2019) Creating an environment for successful projects. San-Francisko: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Fewings, P. and Henjewele, C. (2019) Construction project management: an integrated approach. London: Routledge.
Hulme, A. et al. (2019) ‘What do applications of systems thinking accident analysis methods tell us about accident causation? A systematic review of applications between 1990 and 2018’, Safety science, 117, pp.164-183.
Jackson, M. C. (2019). Critical systems thinking and the management of complexity. San-Francisko: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Kazakov, R. et al. (2021) ‘Managing complex adaptive systems: a resource/agent qualitative modelling perspective’, European Journal of Operational Research, 290(1), pp.386-400.
Levy, S. M. (2018) Project management in construction. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
Liu, J. et al. (2021) ‘Toward a resilient complex adaptive system view of business models’, Long Range Planning, 54(3), p.102.
Nobles, J. D. et al. (2022) ‘The action scales model: a conceptual tool to identify key points for action within complex adaptive systems’, Perspectives in public health, 142(6), pp.328-337.
Pazicni, S. and Flynn, A. B. (2019) ‘Systems thinking in chemistry education: theoretical challenges and opportunities’, Journal of Chemical Education, 96(12), pp.2752-2763.
Rebs, T. et al. (2019) ‘System dynamics modeling for sustainable supply chain management: a literature review and systems thinking approach’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 208, pp.1265-1280.
Wadsworth, Y. (2020) Do it yourself social research: the bestselling practical guide to doing social research projects. London: Routledge.
York, S. et al. (2019) ‘Applications of systems thinking in STEM education’, Journal of Chemical Education, 96(12), pp.2742-2751.