relationship between contextual variables of …

Leite, D. E. S.; Araujo, C. S. Relationship between contextual variables of development …

4º Workshop em Engenharia e Tecnologia Espaciais, Ago 2013

1

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONTEXTUAL VARIABLES OF DEVELOPMENT PRODUCT PROJECTS AND THE ASPECT OF LEADERSHIP PROFILE IN THE

AEROSPACE INDUSTRY

Dinah Eluze Sales Leite

Embaer SA, São José dos Campos, SP, 12227-901, [email protected]

Claudiano Sales Araujo

Embaer SA, São José dos Campos, SP, 12227-901, [email protected] Abstract: This paper has the objective to expand the understanding of the relationship between the contextual variables of product development projects, in the aerospace segment, and the leadership profile best suited to the project's success. The study requested to support a decision regarding the most appropriate choice of the leader profile of a specific development product project. The contemporary market has generated huge changes regarding to the development of new technologies. To remain competitive in this scenario of increasing complexity, organizations began to seek new alternatives in launching new and better products, with development cycles getting shorter. In this context, the selection of a leader with the right profile for each type of design has become essential for the result of the project and the organizations. The study included 63 product development projects, 30 of which belong to the Aerospace industry. Data were collected through an exploratory descriptive research. The research includes a statistical analysis of the characteristics of projects, the performance analysis of these projects, the classification of projects as the "Diamond Approach", the psychological profiles of leaders, according to the methodology MBTI (Myers Briggs Type Indicator) and management competencies. The research results reinforce the importance of a more appropriate choice of the type of project manager, in order to ensure better performance of the project and the organization. Keywords: leadership profile; contextual variables; project performance; project management; product development project 1 Introduction To stay alive in a dynamic, unstable and aggressive market, the organizations have adopted the strategy of effective launch of new products, which, as Rozenfeld et al. (2006), have great importance in the competitive capacity of organizations. According to the authors, the product development consists of activities that consider market needs, technological constraints, product specifications projects, and competitive strategies. The complexity of this scenario requires more of the organizations, including its market position in relation to its competitors (Rabecchini; Carvalho; Laurindo, 2002).

Figure 1. Model to the decision of the project manager (Embraer, 2002)



2

The launching of new and better products on market is the strategy that aims to ensure competitiveness of organizations in each of its processes, including product development and project management. In relation to this, several authors, including eg, Andreasen and Hein (1987), Shenhar and Wideman (2000), Kerzner (2003), consider people as one of the most relevant dimensions for successful product development efforts in an organization. According to Andreasen and Hein (1987), one of the greatest challenges of product development is the efficient leadership of multifunctional teams, essential for the execution of complex projects for the development of successful products, according to Dinsmore (1992), Dutra (2006), Nurick and Thamhain (2006). The product development projects are the responsibility of the project manager (Kerzner, 2002, 2003). Therefore, the selection of a more appropriate manager to the nature of project is essential for the result of the project and matches to the topic investigated in this study. This decision shown in Figure 1, which occurs in the structuring phase of the project, is very relevant and involves the choice of an individual who will be responsible for the project, in the organization or outside. The study considers the hypothesis of the characterization of the psychological and managerial skills as a factor of success or failure for different types of projects. 2 Context Variables of Product Development Projects 2.1 Product Development Process The product development process is the key to competitiveness and organizational sustainability (Araujo, 1997). The product development process involves a cycle of control that includes market conditions and products performance monitoring. Needs, objectives and corporate goals can be generated from the simultaneous analysis of the performance of products and organizational conditions (Andreasen; Hein, 1987).

Figure 2. Model of integrated product development – IPD (Andreasen; Hein, 1987)

The IDP model proposed by Andreasen and Hein (1987), which has as main purpose to create a positive outcome for the organization, shows the need for the simultaneous execution of activities related to aspects of market, product and production. This development integrated with other activities should contribute to the renewal and adaptation of the process within the organization. The Figure 2 shows the model IPD proposed. According to the authors, a project implemented by a single person with knowledge of market, technologies, processes and still able to make decisions and take risks, would be ideal for a successful outcome of product development projects. However, with the increasing complexity of the products of the globalization market, reduced development cycles of products, new technology and reuse of knowledge information on a global scale and partnerships, among others, made this an impossible situation. Management of cross-functional teams is a key strategic objectives that demonstrates the importance of human capital as a competitive advantage for organizations. The selection of a project manager with the appropriate profile for the business is critical to project success. 2.2 Product Development Project According to Shenhar and Wideman (2000), the designs are not only unique, but have a lot of goals, size, complexity and technological uncertainties. Thus, the importance of classifying these projects within some structure. The authors developed a classification system that includes Scope Management in Projects and Programs (Complexity) Content and Technology (Uncertainty), as indicated in Figure 3.



3

Figure 3 Classification of projects by complexity and uncertainty (Shenhar; Wideman, 2000)

Shenhar and Wideman (2000) show that the increase in technological uncertainty implies the need to intensify technical management, while higher levels of complexity require the formalities of project management. The increase of complexity and uncertainty simultaneously demand for higher levels of process integration and testing, thus increasing the need for configuration management. Through this classification, the authors made inquiries regarding the management styles more or less suitable for the nature of each project. Shenhar and Wideman (2000) also suggest that different management styles of the projects should be related to the type of product that comes from the project and the type of work required creating this product. 2.3 Project Management This paper specifically addresses the aerospace industry, which includes very specific characteristics of project management. According to the standard ECSS-M-ST-10C, Space Project Management, Project Planning and Implementation (ECSS, 2009), the phases of the project development of space systems are seven, as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Typical Project Life Cycle (ECSS, 2009)



4

The activities of each phase of the life cycle of a space project, which begins in Phase 0 and ends in Phase F, are described below, in accordance with the standard ECSS (2009). Phase 0 - Mission Analysis: Compared to a conventional project management, this phase is equivalent to the nucleation of the project in which the teamwork and the end-user defines the basic requirements of the mission. The result of this phase includes the identification of the concepts that are presented to financiers. These results are consolidated in Term Mission Statement. The main tasks of this phase are: mission statement identification and characterization, preliminary technical requirements specification, possible mission concepts identification, preliminary assessment of programmatic aspects execution, preliminary risk assessment execution. The closure is with the Mission Definition Review (MDR). Phase A - Feasibility Analysis: This phase determines the technical feasibility, compatibility with the plan and further analysis of the limitations related to project implementation. The results of Phase A include system settings, the definition of the preliminary plan management, plan development, quality and philosophy verification. The closure of the phase occurs with the Preliminary Requirements Review (PRR), which should ensure the technical feasibility of the system and the acceptance of plans. Phase B - Preliminary Definition: The main tasks of this phase are: consolidation of system configurations and operations, development of preliminary design with technical solutions defined, and initiation of manufacture of engineering model, which must demonstrate compliance with functional system requirements. In the Phase B, a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) is established and the verification plan is consolidated. This phase includes the System Requirements Review (SRR) and ends with the Preliminary Design Review (PDR). Phase C - Detailed Definition: This phase includes the completion of system concept, plans manufacturing, integration and testing of the system and components, and details of the development, comprising production, testing, pre-qualification of critical components and interfaces. At this stage, the feasibility of project solutions is demonstrated through a model of engineering equipment and subsystems. The phase ends with the Detailed Design Review (CDR), which aims to evaluate design solutions. Phase D - Qualification and Production: The Phase D includes the qualification and completion of the model qualification of equipment and subsystems. The main activities are: manufacturing and testing of models qualification, documentation for the flight model manufacturing, final configuration of the processes and tooling manufacturing, and definition of procedures for checking and testing of the flight model. This phase begins with manufacturing, integration and testing, subject to acceptance. The Revisions Qualification (QR) and Flight Readiness Review (FRR) may occur at this stage. This phase ends with the Acceptance Review (AR). Phase E - Utilization: The utilization phase includes activities to prepare for the launch, the launch, and the initial procedures of the system operation. The phase includes all commissioning activities, operation in orbit, mission support and activities of ground operations. Phase F - Disposal: This phase includes the implementation of plans for disposal. In the space project management, it is important to emphasize that the general settings of the project are carried out in the preliminary stages of nucleation, represented by the phases 0 and A, when the profile and managerial skills of the project leader must be defined. 2.4 Diamond Approach The Diamond Approach (NTCP), developed by Shenhar and Dvir (2007), includes four main classifications of projects, which are: Novelty, Technology, Complexity and Pace. The projects classification in this structure enables the definition of a more appropriate management style, based on these dimensions. Novelty is defined by the product’s uniqueness to the market. The authors categorize the novelty dimension in derivative, platform and innovation. These dimensions show different objectives regarding to the market, directly affecting the project definition, market activities and management style. Low levels of novelty determine more strictly managerial, needless to higher levels of novelty that require more flexibility and creativity. Technology is a dimension defined as the uncertainty focused on a technologies development, maturity, planning, integration and knowledge. The dimension may impact several factors such as project, testing, communication, integration, closure of the plan, planning cycles, and the competence required for the project manager. The higher the level of technological uncertainty, the greater the level of activity and planning cycles. The dimension technology is divided into four levels: low-tech, medium-tech, high-tech and super-high-tech. High levels of technological uncertainty represent the late closure of the activities related to planning. These



5

characteristics suggest a leadership profile more flexible and capable of dealing with uncertainties, risks and changes. The authors also highlight the importance of stronger technical skills to projects with high technological content. Low technological uncertainties require a leadership profile stricter in order to ensure compliance with the original plan. Complexity, that contemplates product, process and organization, is a dimension defined by how the project and the scope are organized, including the interconnection among the elements of the project. This dimension is represented by the hierarchical structure of the systems and subsystems. The complexity dimension is directly oriented to the scope, and affects the organization, project size, planning, coordinating, documentation, bureaucracy and the type of project management. As the complexity increases, the greater should be the formality of their procedures. Complexity includes three classifications: assembly, system and matrix. According to the authors, the degree of formality of the project in relation to management increases along the complexity dimension. The greater the complexity of the project, stricter should be the management style, which can involve both technical as administrative issues. Pace is defined by the urgency and criticality of time goals of the project. The pace impact directly on the autonomy of project teams, bureaucracy, decision-making and even the degree of involvement of the top management. This dimension is divided into four levels: regular, quick competitive, critical time and blitz. This dimension directly affects the organization, staff and leadership. The high levels of pace demanding teams with total focus on time and still be ready to work on immediate solutions. The involvement of senior management is essential to the success of projects in this classification rate. Each of these dimensions affects different aspects of project management, so the relationship of management style to the nature of the project directly affects the outcome of the project. 3 Leadership Profiles Each type of project has a specific nature and needs. Therefore, these variables associated with the nature of the project must be considered in the definition of the main characteristics of the leadership profile. Due to the increasing complexity of product development projects, organizations increasingly believe in multifunctional teams, as a competitive advantage. Much of the failure of these projects has been attributed to problems related to leadership, which no longer value the diversity of profiles, managing the dynamics of teams improperly (Parker, 1994). According to Nurick and Thamhain (2006), the most effective project managers are those who understand the interaction of organizational and behavioral diversity, promoting an environment of active participation. For Wideman (1998), the leaders and their project teams directly affect project performance. Shenhar and Dvir (2007) show that projects vary in relation to technology, size, risk, environment, complexity, geography, target, time, budget and organizational structure, among others. There is great difficulty in combining all these elements in a model that allows proper classification of projects and the choice of a leadership profile suitable for each project. The authors also emphasize that most design problems are not technical, but managerial. 3.1 Psychological Types and the MBTI (Myers Briggs Type Indicator) The MBTI is a methodology developed from the combination of Jung's psychological types. The descriptions of the profiles according to the methodology MBTI highlight factors much relevant in relation to differences among people (QUENK, 2009). In the MBTI methodology, four opposed pair are combined generating sixteen psychological types. They are: a) Energy: Extrovertion (E), Introvertion (I); b) Information: Sensing (S), INtuition (N); c) Decision: Feeling (F), Thinking (T); d) Lifestyle: Perceiving (P), Judging (J). The extroverted (E) that extracts energy of the external world, reflects people directed to outside experiences and interactions. The introverted (I) extracts energy from your inner world, representing those oriented to thoughts, feelings and reflections. The sensitive (S) seeks information through the five senses. The intuitive (N) value intuition, identifying information from the whole. The feelings (F) represent those who make decisions based on human values, while the thinking (T) make decisions logically and objectively. The perceptive (P) are usually spontaneous, flexible and very oriented to planning and control. The judges (J), organized and methodical, are



6

often based on structured information, results and definitions. From the combination of these psychological types, the different characteristics of each profile can be evaluated, as shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5. MBTI in Project Management Perspective (WIDEMAN, 1998)

4 Project Performance According to Shenhar and Dvir (2007), the success of the project includes the following expectations: efficient outcomes, stakeholder satisfaction, efficiency of teams, success for the business and for the organization and further preparation for future business. In the authors' perception, assessment of project success in the short and long term should include five dimensions: project efficiency, customer impact, impact on staff, direct commercial success and preparation for the future. This article represents a proposed study to characterize the profiles of leadership as a factor of success or failure of different kinds of projects. The study involves the characteristics of the project context, which need to be considered in a systematic way in defining the appropriate profile of the project leader. The decision by someone to assume the leadership of a project must succeed the profile of a manager best suited for a project. The hypothesis that a good project manager will be the best choice in any situation or context does not apply. 5 Methodology The initial analysis of the relationship between contextual variables and project leadership style was made from a demonstration exercise of the projects described by Shenhar and Dvir (2007). This assessment provided a generalization of the results, which was evaluated by conducting the results of the projects described in the research.

N T C P N T C P

N T C P N T C P

Figure 6. Relationship between the levels of the variables NTCP and the MBTI



7

From the analysis of the projects described by Shenhar and Dvir (2007), the leadership profiles defined as the most appropriate for each type of project were associated with the MBTI methodology. The baseline that relates the contextual variables to project leadership profiles is shown in Figure 6. This reference (database, shown in Figure 6) was applied to product development projects of approximately 30 projects detailed in the research, in the aerospace sector. The complete research includes 63 product development projects of several economic sectors. Figure 7 shows a project classified as platform, medium-tech, matrix and critical time.

Figure 7. Project Type and MBTI

The platform projects may require market research and thus a leader with external focus, more extroverted (E). This factor is important but not critical for successful performance of the project. The technology, classified as medium-tech, doesn’t require a very strict management style, but familiarity with changes and uncertainties, which demand a more intuitive profile (N). The complexity classified as matrix requires the integration of these systems sets and thus more formality management. Thus, this dimension suggests a more rational leader (T), and less emotional (F). The level of complexity matrix may require a more strict management style, formal and bureaucratic. The pace, classified as critical time, emphasizes the importance of time planned for the project's success (Shenhar, Dvir, 2007). The leader should be extremely strict with the time limit. This would require great flexibility respect to changes, ability to deal with uncertainty and fast decision making. In this case, the profile judging (J) can have a direct influence on the result of the project. An important step for the classification refers to the definition of the characteristics most critical to the project in order to solve possible conflicts in defining the most appropriate profile for the project, as illustrated in the third dichotomy of Figure 7. In this case, if the most critical feature is the degree of complexity, the priority should be a profile more rational, Thinking (T), in function of the importance of logic and objectivity. However, if the most critical characteristic is rhythm, the time critical classification may suggest a profile more flexible, so Feeling (F). 6 Conclusions This study aimed to develop a methodology to select the most appropriate profile for a project of product development in the aerospace sector, from context variables of the project. Firstly it was elaborated a relationship between contextual variables project, detailed by Shenhar and Dvir (2007), and the most suitable profile for this project, in the view of the authors. These profiles were associated with the methodology MBTI. It is important to show that in cases in which the profiles are not clearly defined, the decision should be taken from the variable considered most critical to the project. The survey results showed that 100% of the projects that had successful performance has the characteristic intuition (N) in the profile of the leader. This result was a feature of all the surveyed segments, not only in the aerospace sector. The profiles intuitive, according Casado (1993), Myers (1995), Keirsey (1998), Jung (2011) and Owens (2011), characterize people who can deal with the uncertainties and identify opportunities from the whole. The Intuitive (N) is a professional oriented for the future. The statistical analysis of the sample showed a strong relationship between the psychological profile of leaders and project performance and the weak relationship between this performance and competence management. The



8

maturity level of professional analyzed was very high, and yet the overall results of performance proved unsatisfactory, with only 27% success, 66% defiant and 7% of failure. The projects of aerospace area, according to analysis, should have the profile of the leader project management defined in Phase B that corresponds to Project Definition Preliminar. This study explores and summarizes the arguments relating to the definitions of psychological profiles of leaders in relation to context variables, contributing to a more optimized analysis in relation to availability of suitable professionals to manage projects successfully. 7 References Andreasen, M. M.; Hein, L. Integrated Product Development. 2. ed. Lyngby: The Institute for Product

Development, Technical University of Denmark, 1987. Araujo, C. S. Avaliação e Seleção de Ferramentas de Desenvolvimento de Produtos. In the Proceedings of the

3rd International Congress of Industrial Engineering - ENEGEP'97. Gramado, Brazil, 6-9, 1997. Casado, T. Tipos Psicológicos e estilos de comportamento motivacional: o diálogo entre Jung e Fromm.

Dissertação de mestrado, Faculdade de Economia e Administração da USP, São Paulo, 1993. Dinsmore, P. C. Gerência de Programas e Projetos, São Paulo: Pini, 1992. Dutra, J. Gestão de Pessoas: Modelo, Processos, Tendências e Perspectivas. São Paulo: Atlas, 2006. Embraer. New Programs. 2002. European Cooperation for Space Standardization (ECSS). ECSS-M-ST-10C: space project management –

project planning and implementation. Noordwijk, The Netherlands: ESA–ESTEC, Requirements & Standards Division, 2009.

Jung, C. G. Tipos Psicológicos. Tradução Álvaro Cabral. Rio de Janeiro: Vozes, 2011. Keirsey, D. Please understand me II: temperament character intelligence. Del Mar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis

Book Company, 1998.Kerzner, H. Gestão de Projetos: As Melhores Práticas. Porto Alegre: Bookman, 2002.

Kerzner, H. Project Management: A System approach to Planning, Scheduling, and Controlling. 8th ed. Ohio: John Wiley & Sons, 2003.

Myers, I. B. Introdução à teoria dos tipos psicológicos: um guia para entender os resultados do Myers Briggs Type Indicator. Right Saad Fellipelli; CP Consulting Psychologists Press. Califórnia: Palo Alto, 1995.

Nurick, A. J.; Thamhain, H. J. (2006). Developing Multinational Project Teams. In: Global Project Management Handbook: Planning, Organizing and Controlling International Projects, (2d ed.), ed. D.L. Cleland and R. Gareis. New York: McGraw Hill, 5.2–5.17.

Owens, M. Portraits of the 16 Personality Types. Personality Desk, LLC, 2011. Parker, G. M. Cross-functional teams: working with allies, enemies, and other strangers. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass, 1994. Quenk, N. L. Essentials of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator assessment. 2nd edition. John Wiley & Sons, 2009. Quinn, R. E.; Thompson, M. P.; Faerman, S. R.; Macgrath, M. Competências gerenciais: princípios e aplicações.

Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier, 2003. Rabecchini JR. R., Carvalho, M.; Laurindo, F. Fatores Críticos para Implementação de Gerenciamento por

Projetos: o caso de uma organização de pesquisa. Revista Produção, v. 12, n. 2, São Paulo, 2002. Rozenfeld, H.; Forcellini, F. A.; Amaral, D. C.; Silva, S. L.; Alliprandini, D. H.; Saclice, R. K. Gestão de

Desenvolvimento de Produtos: Uma referência para a melhoria do processo. Ed. Saraiva, 2006. Shenhar, A. J.; Dvir, D. Reinventando Gerenciamento de Projetos: A Abordagem Diamante ao Crescimento e

Inovação Bem-Sucedidos. São Paulo: M.Books, 2007. Shenhar, A. J.; Wideman, R. M. Optimizing project success by matching pm style with project type. Stevens

Institute of Technology, 2000. Wideman, R. M. Project teamwork, personality profiles and the population at large: do we have enough of the

right kind of people? Proceedings of the 29th Annual Project Management Institute Seminar/Symposium, p. 1-11, 1998.

relationship between contextual variables of …

Documents