Advanced Project Management
Lecture 1
Uncertainties attached to WPs (Van Bueren et al., 2003)
– Cognitive uncertainty (as in Rittel & Weber, 1973): Unknown/unclear how causes and
consequences of a problem exactly are related (lack of [scientific] knowledge);
– Strategic uncertainty: Due to many actors involved, different views on nature of problem and
strategies to deal with them
– Institutional uncertainty: Decision-making take place in different institutional arenas (ranging
from local to international and different levels of ‘maturity’)
Type of problems (Roberts, 2000)
• Type 1 problems: “Simple problems”. High consensus on problem definition and
solution among stakeholders. Standard routines and procedures to deal with
problem.
• Type 2 problems: “Complex problems”. Agreement on problem, but not on solution.
Conflict among stakeholders and decision-making process more complex. (Example:
Plastic waste pollution in oceans)
• Type 3 problems: No agreement on problem or solution. Typically a wicked problem.
(Example: Immigration policies)
Type 3 Coping Strategies
1.Authorative strategies:
– Type 3 problem + power not dispersed.
– Put problem in hands of a few stakeholders
– Few stakeholders selected on basis of e.g., knowledge, expertise, status, position, coercive
power
– Other stakeholders accept ‘lower’ power position
– Advantages:
• Reducing #stakeholders = reducing complexity
• Problem solving goes quicker
• Using experts, more professional
– Disadvantages:
• Authorities/experts can be wrong
• Lost opportunity for community-wide learning
2.Competitive strategies:
– Stakeholders assume ‘zero-sum-game’.
– Central is search for power (ability to get what one wants against resistance)
– Power is contested
– Advantages:
• Competition often breeds creativity
• Challenging institutionalization of power (some you win/lose)
– Disadvantages:
• Produce extreme behaviors
• Increase costs (e.g. disputes)
, 3.Collaborative or network strategies:
– Joining forces with (number of) stakeholders = trying to create synergy or win-win game
– Enlarging the pie
– Alliances, partnerships, joint ventures, networks
• Advantages, e.g.
– Sharing costs and benefits
– Sharing risks
– Better output
– Eliminating redundancies and increasing efficiency
• Disadvantages, e.g.
– Higher transaction costs
– Higher probability of conflicts
Tertius gaudens orientation (Georg Simmel): is a third party who profits or benefits from
competition amongst two others. The third party can gain tremendous power. Sparse
networks and structural holes are ideal strategic position for the creation of new ideas and
for information flows.
Tertius Iungens orientation (David Obstfelt): "the third who joins“. These same networks are
poorly suited to action and resource mobilization. Thus: dense social networks to marshal
resources
From dyad to triad (= multi-actor)
• From restricted (social) exchange (dyadic level)
– i.e., two parties directly exchange (favors)
• To generalized (social) exchange (> dyadic level)
– i.e. takes place among a group of a least 3 parties and there is no direct reciprocity
(delayed)
• Consequence (esp. at inter-organizational level)
– Less reliance on formal structures (hierarchy & rules) only
– More reliance on social (informal) mechanisms (trust, socialization, reputation), but
very hard to observe
Temporary goal-directed whole networks or temporary organizations are:
– Temporary inter-organizational systems of legally autonomous but functionally
interdependent organizations that interact to coordinate their efforts for the
accomplishment of a joint outcome in a limited amount of time (which is ex ante defined)
Lecture 1: Stakeholder Management
Stakeholder: Any person, group or organisation who can be positively or negatively impacted by, or
cause an impact on, the action or activities in the project.
Stakeholder Management is:
• Project stakeholder management are all the purposeful activities towards stakeholders to enhance
project success.
• It consists of the identification, assessment, prioritisation, engagement and monitoring of
stakeholders.
Lecture 1
Uncertainties attached to WPs (Van Bueren et al., 2003)
– Cognitive uncertainty (as in Rittel & Weber, 1973): Unknown/unclear how causes and
consequences of a problem exactly are related (lack of [scientific] knowledge);
– Strategic uncertainty: Due to many actors involved, different views on nature of problem and
strategies to deal with them
– Institutional uncertainty: Decision-making take place in different institutional arenas (ranging
from local to international and different levels of ‘maturity’)
Type of problems (Roberts, 2000)
• Type 1 problems: “Simple problems”. High consensus on problem definition and
solution among stakeholders. Standard routines and procedures to deal with
problem.
• Type 2 problems: “Complex problems”. Agreement on problem, but not on solution.
Conflict among stakeholders and decision-making process more complex. (Example:
Plastic waste pollution in oceans)
• Type 3 problems: No agreement on problem or solution. Typically a wicked problem.
(Example: Immigration policies)
Type 3 Coping Strategies
1.Authorative strategies:
– Type 3 problem + power not dispersed.
– Put problem in hands of a few stakeholders
– Few stakeholders selected on basis of e.g., knowledge, expertise, status, position, coercive
power
– Other stakeholders accept ‘lower’ power position
– Advantages:
• Reducing #stakeholders = reducing complexity
• Problem solving goes quicker
• Using experts, more professional
– Disadvantages:
• Authorities/experts can be wrong
• Lost opportunity for community-wide learning
2.Competitive strategies:
– Stakeholders assume ‘zero-sum-game’.
– Central is search for power (ability to get what one wants against resistance)
– Power is contested
– Advantages:
• Competition often breeds creativity
• Challenging institutionalization of power (some you win/lose)
– Disadvantages:
• Produce extreme behaviors
• Increase costs (e.g. disputes)
, 3.Collaborative or network strategies:
– Joining forces with (number of) stakeholders = trying to create synergy or win-win game
– Enlarging the pie
– Alliances, partnerships, joint ventures, networks
• Advantages, e.g.
– Sharing costs and benefits
– Sharing risks
– Better output
– Eliminating redundancies and increasing efficiency
• Disadvantages, e.g.
– Higher transaction costs
– Higher probability of conflicts
Tertius gaudens orientation (Georg Simmel): is a third party who profits or benefits from
competition amongst two others. The third party can gain tremendous power. Sparse
networks and structural holes are ideal strategic position for the creation of new ideas and
for information flows.
Tertius Iungens orientation (David Obstfelt): "the third who joins“. These same networks are
poorly suited to action and resource mobilization. Thus: dense social networks to marshal
resources
From dyad to triad (= multi-actor)
• From restricted (social) exchange (dyadic level)
– i.e., two parties directly exchange (favors)
• To generalized (social) exchange (> dyadic level)
– i.e. takes place among a group of a least 3 parties and there is no direct reciprocity
(delayed)
• Consequence (esp. at inter-organizational level)
– Less reliance on formal structures (hierarchy & rules) only
– More reliance on social (informal) mechanisms (trust, socialization, reputation), but
very hard to observe
Temporary goal-directed whole networks or temporary organizations are:
– Temporary inter-organizational systems of legally autonomous but functionally
interdependent organizations that interact to coordinate their efforts for the
accomplishment of a joint outcome in a limited amount of time (which is ex ante defined)
Lecture 1: Stakeholder Management
Stakeholder: Any person, group or organisation who can be positively or negatively impacted by, or
cause an impact on, the action or activities in the project.
Stakeholder Management is:
• Project stakeholder management are all the purposeful activities towards stakeholders to enhance
project success.
• It consists of the identification, assessment, prioritisation, engagement and monitoring of
stakeholders.
