10-11 May 2012 Tutorials

My thesis is forming up a bit, and  I think I have nearly nailed down the question that I am trying to answer. I am glad that we did the sessions, and it is just clear that I really need to figure out what is it exactly I am doing. 

For the most part, I have the generic baseline stuff that I need to form my thesis. I already know the type of data I will be using. And I have the generic idea of what my literature would look like. The real problem is the question... so after much discussion with Alec and Dennis, I sat down in the learning grid to clear things out... I think I almost have it:

Finding my Unit of Analysis

For the past few days I have been trying to define my case. Alec has blogged about Yin's illustration of different types of case studies. One thing for sure, I am doing a multiple case study. But I'm just having harder time to frame up what my unit of analysis is... what is exactly the case I am studying?

Is it the country programme risk management process? and the country project risk management process as an embedded unit of analysis?

or 

Is it the UNDP risk management process? and the country programme risk management process as embedded unit of analysis?

or 

Is it the project and programme risk management process congruency?

So confused!

Tried to write it up on the board... and I think I may have something here... somewhere.

I'm merely posting this so I won't lose the images...  I will stare at this for a while and maybe a thought might just jump in.

Ideas anyone?

What am I Doing???

I just read Hillson's article; and I am appalled (maybe crushed or devastated even!).

We wanted to discover the best metrics for determining whether a risk management process is effective, and to find ways of showing a link between risk management and improved bottom-line outcomes.

Basically this is what I want to do with UNDP.

But...

Interestingly, the PMI Research Department felt that it was not possible to design an academic  research project to answer these questions directly, and they decided not to take the idea forward. 

This leaves an important and vexing question for risk practitioners – how do we prove we’re adding value?! 

That leaves me with the question... What am I doing??? Is it even possible to do my thesis???

I'm going to sleep on this... maybe tomorrow I will be in a better mood (less panicked state) to look at this objectively! :(

Wei Ji

I remember a discussion with a friend from the Philippines about risk; he pointed out to me that risk in Chinese is known as Wei Ji:

When I opened a book by Hillson, I saw these two characters in his introduction!

I found the Chinese version of risk quite interesting. It is composed of two characters, the first one meaning danger and the second one meaning opportunity. This reflects the true nature of risk; that it can be negative as well as it can be positive. In the context of programme and project management, most often than not when we talk about risk management we almost always mean about managing the impacts of unpleasant events.  Reading through his book, however, Hillson always put risk on a higher note by always emphasising the optimisation of opportunity risks.

---
Source:
HILLSON, D. 2010. Exploiting future uncertainty : creating value from risk, Farnham, Surrey, England ; Burlington, Vt., Gower.

The Risk Variable in Value Optimisation

“Value is grounded in reality.” Stewart emphasises that value is not defined by price but rather in utility. An innovation may have a set price, but its utility depends on the perspective of the owners. The absolute cost of a product may be fixed; but its value may differ depending on the perception of the end users.

Stewart's book 'Value optimization for Project and Performance Management' looks at value from the project point of view.  He defines value in four variables: time, cost, performance and risk. The time-cost-performance triangle is the standard dimension in measuring success in project management, but Stewart adds the risk variable in his value function.  

 or simply...

Risk should be incorporated in measuring value; the impact of uncertainty to achieving project objectives must be considered. This is because if the management of risk is neglected, it can damage the overall value of the project.

"Maximising the relationship between these [four] elements is important to satisfying the customer and optimising valure"

---

Source:
STEWART, R. B. 2010. Value optimization for project and performance management, Hoboken, N.J., Wiley.

What is Grounded Theory?

It is not a theory! Rather, it is an approach to the generation of theory out of data.

'Grounded theory has been defined as "theory that was derived from data, systematically gathered and analysed through the research process". In this method, data collection, analysis, and eventual theory stand in close relationship to one another'. (Bryman, 2012)

Source: BRYMAN, A. 2012. Social research methods, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Different Project Management Approaches

Encountered an interesting article discussing different research approaches to project management. Table below summarises the authors' discussion

click image to enlarge

---

Source: ALOJAIRI, A. & SAFAYENI, F. The fragmented nature of the project management field. 2009.

Link: http://ojs.acadiau.ca/index.php/ASAC/article/viewFile/662/571

Using Documents as Data

I'm happy with my choice to do use archival documents as my primary data. Makes me feel a bit different :) Everyone else seems to be opting for using surveys. But it is not an easy choice. Reading into some literature, I have a lot of work to do... and so many decisions to make for my methodology!

Here are some concerns that I need to look at when using documents as data.

1. Level of Analysis - Few or ,many (or both)?
• Few - information from a single or few organisations (concentrate on a few country offices)
• Many - information from many organisations (a sample of country offices in a region)
2. Input Method - Read or measure (or both)?
• Read - using large amounts of archival information, make discoveries through managed pattern of reading
• Measure - Use social scientific 'coding'; insight comes from attention to patterns
3. Causality Theory - Descending or ascending (or both)?
• Descending - Macro patterns are expected to explain micro processes
• Ascending - Micro processes develop on their own, but are incorporated at a higher level of social organisation
4. Measurement Theory - Objects or relations (or both)?
• Objects - analysis focuses on connecting attributes to outcomes
• Relations - relations (rather than characteristics) of objects are expected to yield explanatory value.

Also reading about archival analysis raised a lot more questions. Just clear that there is a lot that I don't know. I read a lot of analytic methodology terms that I do not quite understand, but I may use it in the future:

Content analysis

Semantic grammars

Semiotics

Multidimensional scaling

Sequence analysis

Boolean algebra

Galois lattice

Correspondence analysis

Hierarchical classification model

---

Source:
VENTRESCA, M. J. & MOHR, J. W. 2002. Archival research methods. Blackwell companion to organizations, 805-828.