How Human Factors Affect Projects

Human and political forces loom large in the success of projects.Meredith and Mantel

Projects are created by people for the benefit of people — without people, there would be no projects and no need for projects. Human factors are present at every stage of the project —at the pre-planning stage, project approval, planning, implementation through the transition to completion.[2]

With so many moving parts, variables and unknowns to deal with, many projects are doomed to fail before they even start. Even with careful planning, ample resources and technical expertise, projects are at the mercy of unpredictable influences. Human and political forces can work to the benefit or detriment of the project — and often, skilful handling by the project manager makes the only difference between success and failure.

The difference between projects and everyday work is that a project is only done once, as opposed to the repetitive nature of “ordinary daily work”.[7] It is important to recognise this difference in resource allocation, to ensure that operational tasks do not consume resources allocated to the project. Similarly, recognising this difference between project-specific needs and everyday business operations is not always understood or appreciated by the organisation’s management.

Failure to see the bigger picture, and lack of co-operation or interference from senior management, often lead to issues that frustrate the project. Without support from top executives, the project is clouded with uncertainty and more likely to be terminated.[8] Getting “buy-in” from every stakeholder, from senior management and project sponsor through to the end users, is critical to ensure the project stays on track. Likewise, projects involving organisational transformation may find resistance to change manifesting in disinterested lack of co-operation, obstinacy, hostility or even sabotage.

Kerzner wrote about how human nature and decisions made while guided by any of the “seven deadly sins” (of envy, anger, pride, greed, sloth, lust and gluttony), “whether they are made at the top or bottom of the organisation, can have dire consequences on projects.” Projects necessitate the grouping  of people of various orientations to bond to achieve a common set of objectives. The project goal is pushed aside when, inevitably, internal politicking and conflict arise, leading to jostling for position, laying blame, hoarding resources, lust for power and control, and other actions motivated purely by self-interest.

Tuckman observed this behaviour in the development sequence of groups brought together to perform tasks, from which he developed the forming–storming–norming–performing–adjourning model of group development. He proposed that: “after the newness of the group has worn off, the members react to both the imposition of the group and the task emotionally and negatively, and pose a threat to further development.” If these power struggles and conflicts are overcome, the group begins to settle into their individual roles and start to perform effectively as a team.[11]

In order to make best use of the organisations resources projects should be aligned closely to the organisation’s strategic objectives, to build a project portfolio containing similarly focused projects. The organisation gains considerable expertise from past experience, and develops systems, or templates, for future projects to optimise resources, efficiencies and likelihood of success. On the other hand, over-reliance on past indicators may, over time, form mental models that cause “cultural lock-in”, a way of corporate collective thinking that can paralyse innovation and creative thinking. The desire to minimise uncertainty and find comfort in the familiar — assuming whatever worked before will work again in future — can stem from stubborn adherence to operational rules and procedures.[4]

The transient and transformational nature of projects require acceptance of risk as a consequence of change, which in itself is a reaction to market forces. The tolerance for change, and the willingness of individuals to accept change as a necessary condition for innovation varies greatly within organisations, and is often a major source of conflict.

Control of projects is always exercised through people. Organisational politics exerts influence over the final project selection process as different business leaders argue for projects that they sponsor.[1] Senior managers in the organisation, under control of the CEO, try to “exercise governance over project managers, and project managers try to exert control over the project team and others representing functions that are involved with the project.”[8]

Human factors and the impact and influence of people are as important, if not more so than the systems, technology and technical implementation of projects. Personality conflicts arise from people not knowing what other people do, how they work, what contribution they make, or what results they expect — usually because they do not take the trouble to ask.[3]

People control the flow of information that informs every decision and process at every stage of the project. Having the best information at the right time is crucial for making good decisions. Internal politics and inter-departmental wrangling over resources thrive in an environment where those who have the information hold the power, possibly to use to promote self-interests. Stakeholders withholding information, mis-informing, or unintentionally choking the flow of information can seriously undermine a project’s chance of success.

Human emotion is often the invisible force that can cause rational people to make irrational decisions. As a result, success or failure of any project implementation rests on the ability of the principals involved to manage the human factors in project management .[2] This necessitates strong leadership from management and project teams, effective communication and sharing of information among stakeholders, and an unwavering focus on the ultimate objectives of the project.