軟體專案管理報告 IMPROVING PROJECT OUTCOMES THROUGH OPERATIONAL RELIABILITY: A CONCEPTUAL MODEL

1. 軟體專案管理報告IMPROVING PROJECT OUTCOMES THROUGH OPERATIONAL RELIABILITY:A CONCEPTUAL MODEL Summarized from.: Sullivan, J. and Beach, R., 2010, International Journal of Project Management, 28, p. 765-775. 951606 范雅筑 951644 李源裕 951623 江小琪 951703 洪嘉昌 951632 陳葦芸 951736 陳啟天 951645 王俐尹 951751 李洹宇 951626 王佩婷 951758 謝孟樸

2. INTRODUCTION 951645 王俐尹

3. INTRODUCTION • Management information system (IS) projects have beenstudied for many years, and numerous recommendationshave been made to improve performance. • ERP systems are highly integrated, complex,cross-functional systems, which support business processesacross an entire organisation.

4. INTRODUCTION(CON.) • High reliability organisations (HRO) operate in environments where the potential for disaster is high, the pressure to meet expectations is persistent and the consequences for failure are publicly visible.

5. INTRODUCTION(CON.) • That projects can also be considered as ‘‘particular kinds of organisations” (ibid) reinforces our view that these ‘project-based organisations’ might benefit from an improved understanding of how high operational reliability is achieved.

6. INTRODUCTION(CON.) • The aims of this phase were to: • (a) provide the theoretical foundations for researching the factors that contribute to operational reliability in IS project environments.

7. INTRODUCTION(CON.) • (b) develop a framework to facilitate a comparative analysis of organisational activities and the synthesis of empirical data gathered in subsequent stages of the research. • (c) extend knowledge of those organisational characteristics that contribute to successful project outcomes/reliable operational performance.

8. HIGH RELIABILITY ORGANISATIONS 951644 李源裕

9. HIGH RELIABILITY ORGANISATIONS • Some organisations have been very successful in the implementation of complex systems • HRO is capable of developing and/or applying sophisticated technologies • HRO is the way that these organisations deal with failure and recovery

10. HOW HRO WORK • high reliability is possible and that organizations possess attributes that can enhance reliability • design reward systems to recognize the costs of failure

11. ATTRIBUTES • The HRO places a higher priority on reliability than any other objective • It places a high priority on effective performance and avoiding disasters through processes of collective learning

12. CHARACTERIZATION • high technical competence • high performance and oversight • a propensity to constantly search for improvements • a propensity to constantly search for improvements

13. CHARACTERIZATION (CONT.) • operate under high pressure • use incentives and share expectations to enhance reliability • maintain hazard-driven operational flexibility to ensure safety • promote a culture of reliability • avoid cost effective trade-offs and trial and error learning

14. HRO MATRIX • using a two dimensional matrix • technological risk • Reliability

15. HRO MATRIX

16. EXAMPLE • television weather reporter be plotted in quadrant 1 • low reliability and low technological risk • metropolitan water supplier be classified into quadrant 3 • high reliability and low technological risk

17. EXAMPLE(CONT.) • United States Military • at the right side of quadrant 3 and in quadrant 4 • Chernobyl and Three Mile Island nuclear power plants during their respective crises • quadrant 2

18. FRAMEWORK • profit-seeking organisations might place a different emphasis on reliability compared to non-profit organisations • service organisations (high consumer contact) may avoid technological risk in preference for proven technologies compared to manufacturers

19. RISK 951626 王佩婷

20. Primary risks faced by the HRO • The primary risks faced by the HRO are those that ： • may result in significant property damage or loss of life • those associated with failure to meet the expectations of stakeholders for safe and effective performance

21. So they refer to these as operational and stakeholder risks

22. Operational risk factors • Grabowski and Roberts have suggested that HRO risk factors involve ‘‘high consequence.” • In extreme cases, they include uncertain or hazardous operating environments, ‘‘a situation that invokes a sense of dread”

23. Operational risk factors (cont.) • Risk factors exist in other forms such as introducing new technology where failure to properly manage the technology might threaten the value of the company stock or drain resources from more profitable ventures

24. Operational risk factors (cont.) • human activities : false assumptions about reality or the effects of political activity • when small anomalies evolve into significant problems risk factors can arise as effects of a ‘‘disaster incubation period”

25. Operational risk factors (cont.) • Risk factors can be categorized into threegroups： • 1. known risk • 2. imagined risk • 3. unknown risk

26. Stakeholder expectations • An organisation’s stakeholders include its managers,employees, regulatory and political entities and, increasingly,the general public and consumers • Stakeholder influence on project outcomes is well known and strategies to influence the behavioural characteristics of individuals to mitigate the effects in ‘‘sensitive projects” have been presented

27. Stakeholder expectations (cont.) • The HRO requires a ‘‘high level of goal congruence and a shared sense of duty to the collective purpose” • Aboard US Navy aircraft carriers, each individual is expected to perform assigned tasks reliably as well as monitoring the larger picture

28. Stakeholder expectations (cont.) • In these organisations, the expectations of individuals are so high that an organisational culture develops surrounding those expectations. • This is in stark contrast to the non-HRO where failure to meet expectations rarely invokes the same degree of anxiety from stakeholders. • The consequences of failure are related to stakeholder expectations in that failure to meet minor expectations will result in minimal consequences whilst major failures will result in more severe consequences.

29. CAPABILITY 951623 江小琪

30. CAPABILITY • Capability can be defined in terms of resources and competences. • The HRO places a higher priority on the adequacy of these resources. • Competences include proprietary process knowledge, unique skills and experiences. • The HRO must have significant reserves of these competences to adequately address the hazards of their environment.

31. RESOURCES • Reliability to be equal or greater in importance to efficiency and maintaining adequate resources is a prerequisite of reliability. • Grabowski and Roberts suggest: • Over time large scale systems can become degraded. • Higher operational costs than conventional organizations.

32. RESOURCES (CONT.) • Perrow • drives toward efficiency (cost reduction or increased profitability) increased the danger in complex systems. • Roberts • in large scale HRO environments where resource requirements can be significant.

33. RESOURCES (CONT.) • The HRO also has a heightened awareness of investments in safety. • Many organizations understand that ‘‘expenditure on safety is a good investment.” • But the HRO is characterized by an operational ethos in which reliability rivals efficiency. • The cost of an accident far outweighs the cost of preventive measures.

34. COMPETENCE FACTORS • Competences include the skills, procedures, knowledge and experience of an organization’s members. • These factors are difficult to quantify and tend to fluctuate over time. • In times of crisis, exceptional competence is often credited with averting disaster.

35. COMPETENCE FACTORS (CONT.) • To attain ‘high reliability’ high levels of competence are necessary but even organizations with plentiful resources will occasionally experience system failure. • In essence, it is the competence factors that prevent disaster, not resources alone.

36. COMPETENCE FACTORS (CONT.) • How these competences are nurtured and deployed within the organization will impact on the effectiveness of the system. • The matrix structure, frequently associated with project-based organizations, can be particularly useful in overcoming problems that are inter-functional in nature.

37. COMPETENCE FACTORS -SAPIENTIAL AUTHORITY • They also provide competence and confidence building opportunities for individuals that can lead to the creation of sapiential authority . • Sapiential authority • knowledge and expertise • maturity (life knowledge) rather than hierarchical position (structural or positional authority • To be particularly useful when events become critical .

38. DISAGREEMENT • As previously mentioned, there is some disagreement as to whether all failures can be completely prevented in complex systems. • Perrow’s “Normal Accident Theory” • accidents in complex technological systems must be expected, that eventually enough circumstances will align themselves and failure will follow.

39. EXAMPLE • A Thousand Heroes • In 1989 United Airlines Flight 232 from Denver to Chicago suffered an explosion in one of the aircraft’s engines causing a loss of hydraulic power. • 111 passengers died but 185 survived.

40. CAPABILITY TO MITIGATE RISK&THE CONCEPTUAL MODEL 951736 陳啟天

41. 5.CAPABILITY TO MITIGATE RISK • some organisations must carry excess capability to mitigate exceptional operational risks. • lower capability is required by those whose perceived risk and consequences of failure are lower. • the HRO must ‘‘avoid errors or failure because the potential cost is unacceptable to society”

42. 6.THE CONCEPTUAL MODEL • Organisations that reliably manage complex systems maintain a balance between those factors that represent a threat to the system and those that mitigate them. • HRO is able to consistently achieve this balance over long periods of time.

43. 6.THE CONCEPTUAL MODEL A conceptual appear to facilitate high operational reliability.

44. ABOUT THIS MODEL • Five interacting forces: expectations, risk factors, resources, competence factors, and consequences.

45. 6.1 RESOURCE AND EXPECTATIONS • adequate resources are essential to support complex systems in the HRO. • cutting back resources and emphasising efficiency is detrimental to reliability.

46. A MODEL ABOUT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EXPECTATIONS AND RESOURCES • The bidirectional nature of this relationship is represented in the model as dotted lines. • whilst the variable relative strength (or weakness) of these components is represented as triangles.

47. A MODEL ABOUT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EXPECTATIONS AND RESOURCES

48. THE CONCEPTUAL MODEL 951758 謝孟樸

49. THE CONCEPTUAL MODEL Five factors • Resource、Expectation、Consequence、Competence factor、Risk Relationship • Resource and expectations • Expectations and consequences • Consequences and competence factors • Competence factorsandrisks

50. EXPECTATIONS AND CONSEQUENCES Factors of Influence consequence • Resources are reduced • Ability insufficiency • External political influences • Environment opposition