Managing emergent changes: ad hoc teams’ praxis and practices

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore how emergent changes are handled in research and development (R&D) projects. R&D projects’ business potential lies in their exploration of the unknown; conversely, this makes them uncertain endeavours, prone to emergent changes. Design/methodology/approach Uses a single-case-study design, based on a projects-as-practice perspective and a soft systems methodology (SSM) analysis, to map how ad hoc R&D teams handle emergent changes, specifically the solution identification and assessment phase and the implementation plan. An R&D project in the power industry, involving over 250 engineers, was analysed. Findings This paper shows how emergent changes are handled differently from initiated changes during the decision-making phase. The system analysis shows that the most critical factors for managing these changes are: collective reflection between project parties; and including experienced engineers in implementation-plan reviews. Practical implications The results are of relevance both to R&D managers aiming to improve team performance and to general project management. Informal notions of emergent changes can be formalised in the change request process. Weaknesses in the project team’s organisation are highlighted, and details of how of how to mitigate these are provided. Originality/value Combines engineering-design and project-management research on emergent changes, adding to the former regarding people–organisational and strategic issues. Furthers understanding of the projects-as-practice approach and emergent change (deviations) handling by ad hoc teams in a project environment. SSM has not previously been used to explore aspects of projects-as-practice, and this is a novel way of adding to the body of knowledge on project praxis and practise.

Opportunity discovery in initiated and emergent change requests

“…Like Ward and Chapman (2003); Olsson (2007); Krane et al (2014) as well as Sjögren et al (2018), this research shows that opportunities are not discovered as frequently as negative consequences. This similarity is encouraging, as it can be used to improve and refine management.…”

“…In this, practitioners are the agents of practice and praxis. The formation of ad hoc teams is relevant because the process allows the management of engineering changes across organizational levels (Sjögren et al 2018). The ad hoc team plans and implements the change according to the new requirements that provoked the change (Engwall and Svensson 2004).…”

“…This finding can be compared to the ratios observed for initiated and emergent changes in this paper (24% and 76%). However, Sjögren et al (2018), showed a ratio of 45% to 55% for emergent changes and initiated changes respectively, in that case, they studied a new project-development project which ought to have an impact on this ratio. Additionally, there was a tangent, in the studied project, in which the longer the project progressed, the fewer initiated changes were raised, and more emergent changes occur.…”

“…By this logic, ad hoc teams must strive to discover opportunities rather than focusing on resolving obvious technical toward the end of a project. On the other hand, returning to the new product-development study of Sjögren et al (2018), the relationship was the reverse, more initiated changes were raised later in the project than emergent changes. Furthermore, the higher rejection rate for initiated changes could be because ''wants'' have low priority Table 4.…”

“…Similarly, Sjögren et al (2018) found that as ad hoc teams work to resolve a change request they often work on one-solution alternative in an iterative way going back and forth between second and third stages of Jarratt et al's (2005) generic engineering change process. In Figure 4, as an adaptation of the generic engineering change process of Jarratt et al (2011), the second and third stages in the process are indicated in an iterative loop.…”