Graham Scott

Senior Consultant, Thinc, Queensland, Australia

Abstract
Construction disputes are on the increase and poor delivery performance is increasingly leading to project
failure. It is widely recognised that projects generally fail because of human behaviours, not technical
issues. This paper presents a risk based approach to identify, assess and manage the human factors that
contribute to project failure.
The paper then outlines a methodology using best practice project management techniques to develop a
planned approach to delivering project outcomes with collaborative, high performance teams. The
approach takes the hit and miss out of team building that has plagued team development for so long and
challenges current thinking in soft aspects of hard delivery in the project environment.
In summary, the paper presents a practical, applicable approach to effectively managing human dynamics
in project teams or more simply people issues. Grahams presentation will also feature a whole range of
real case studies to bring the topic to life.

Key Words: High Performance Teams, Risk, Project Management, Effective Project Delivery, Major Projects,
Pathogens

Introduction
It has been widely reported that megaprojects
worth more than $1billion are failing at a
staggering rate of 65% and projects worth less
than $500 million are failing at a rate of 35%.1 A
project has considered to have failed if:
The schedule slips, costs are overrun, or
the project overspends by more than
25%
The project is delayed by more than 50%

Klaver, Ali. December/January 2012. Speed Kills. Project

Manager Magazine (AIPM).

There are severe and continuing

operational problems into year two of
the project

Construction disputes are also on the increase,

with the direct cost of resolving disputes in
Australia high and rising. Recent estimates
suggest disputes cost the industry between $560
and $840 million per year. A more recent report
by Klaver (2012) also found that the transactional
costs for resolving disputes and claims may total
$4 billion to $12 billion or more each year.

These costs include both direct and indirect costs.

Direct costs including the fees and expenses paid
to lawyers, paralegals, accountants, claims
consultants and other experts, and salaries and
associated overhead for in-house lawyers and
employees who assemble facts, serve as
witnesses, and process disputes. Indirect costs
include the inefficiencies, delays, and loss of
quality that disputes cause to the construction
process itself; the lost-opportunity costs of
diverting productive employees away from profitmaking activities into litigation support; and the
costs of fractured relationships between parties
who would otherwise profit if they could
continue to do business with each other.
These are worrying trends for the industry, but
whats at their root cause? There are a number of
contributing factors not least the global
economic slowdown and more confrontational
tendering practices but we believe there is
something deeper that the industry has ignored
for too long; the impact of human relationships
on project success.
Why do projects fail?
It almost sounds too simple, but it is widely
recognised that projects generally fail because of
human behaviours, not technical issues:
By and large projects are not driven to failure by
a lack of technical knowledge but by project
behaviours that may be reasonably anticipated.
Project failure to meet objectives can be
prevented by elimination or mitigation of the root
causes. These causes are non-technical in nature;
none of their solutions require maths. Unlike
engineering problems that lend themselves to
logical, sequential thinking using time testing
formulas, these engineering problems require
knowledge of Human System Engineering
tm
(Hayden, 2004).
However, unlike other industries that have
realised the contribution of human factors in
relation to team performance, safety and
success, the construction industry still has its
head firmly in the sand. Take the aviation
industry for example. Following a spate of fatal
accidents in the 80s and 90s, research showed
that the majority of accidents were ultimately

caused by a lack of communication or negative

team dynamics in the cockpit. In response, the
industry embraced a concept called Crew
Resource Management (CRM) and has
subsequently undergone a major transformation.
Crew Resource Management (CRM) emerged
from a workshop at NASA in 1979, when it found
that the primary cause of most aviation accidents
was human error. CRM is not concerned with the
technical knowledge and skills required to
operate equipment, but rather with the cognitive
and interpersonal skills needed to manage
resources within an organised system. CRM aims
to foster a culture where the freedom to
respectfully question authority is encouraged and
communication and relationships are proactively
managed. In the airline industry, air crews are
now checked on their ability to apply CRM
principles, just as they are in the ability to
manage an aircraft.
As an industry, we need to finally recognise the
importance of non-technical factors on project
success and effectively manage them to reduce
project failure and improve outcomes.
The field of forces:
In any endeavour there are dynamics that impact
outcomes - Kurt Lewin referred to these factors
as a field of forces. A crucial aspect of this is
how the dynamics impact and interact with each
other and how this chain reaction impacts
performance.
In the project context, we believe there are three
dominant groups of forces that interact with the
project environment and influence project
deliverables and outcomes technical,
sociological and psychological forces.
From years of project experience we have
developed a unique model, based on Katz and
Khans (1966) approach which highlights that
work organisations, like living organisms, are
based on a flow. In any system there are a
number of interacting dynamics that impact
outputs. External influences include familiar
resources like employees, raw materials, and
capital. However, they also include intangible

external influences, such as status, recognition,

satisfaction, or other personal rewards.
The Thinc Team Dynamics Process Model (see
figure one) shows three distinctive circles of
dynamics operating within a greater system,
which is the project or organisational
environment. The three circles while being
independent also impact on and are impacted by
each other. As an example of this, culture
determines the social infrastructure in a project
team and is influenced on by the social
infrastructure in the project team.

Figure One Project Forces - The Thinc Team Dynamics Process

Model

Case study:

The following case study is an example of the

process in action.
A Project Manager was known for being a very
tough manager. His approach, based on years of
experience, was one of being in absolute control.
As such, team members and even senior leads
were very cautious about approaching the
Project Manager on points of difference. In this
particular project, meeting the schedule was
paramount. However senior managers in the
project strongly believed that the schedule would
not be met due to specific issues. When these
were raised in both open or closed forums the
Project Manager shut down the conversation, to
the point that serious issues remained
undiscussed and unresolved.
In a workshop facilitated by the author, we were
able to put a process in place that got the issues
on the table and consequently managed. The
Project Manager was initially dismissive and
reiterated that there would be no discussion on
the schedule. Following some persuasive
dialogue, the session progressed. From the
session, the issue identification and management
led to a belief by all the team that the schedule
would be met if the restricting issues were
resolved. Following this and through ongoing
coaching, the Project Manager was amazed once
he realised that his style was having a negative
impact on the teams capacity to resolve issues.
In this case the underlying latent risk was in the
Psychological arena; the Project Managers
style and personality. This created another
dynamic in both the psychological and
sociological arenas, in that the team were unable
to communicate with the powerful leader. This
would have likely led to a breakdown in the
technical delivery and impacted the schedule as a
result of not resolving the issues.
Pathogens
In their analysis of disputes in projects, Busby and
Hughes (2004) refer to pathogens of disputes in
projects that while not obvious are relatively
stable phenomena that have been in existence

for a long time. These authors describe a

pathogen based on a medical analogy, somewhat
like a bacteria or other latent biological dynamic
in an organic system.
These authors defined pathogens by a number of
qualities:
They are a relatively stable phenomena
that have been in existence for a
substantial time before the dispute
occurs
Before the dispute occurs, they would
not have been seen as obvious stages in
an identifiable sequence failure
They are strongly connected to the
dispute, and are identifiable as principal
causes
of the disputes once it occurred

These authors categorised the pathogens as:

Practice arising from peoples
deliberate practices
Task arising from the nature of the task
being performed
Circumstance arising from the situation
or environment the project was
operating in
Organization arising from
organizational structure or operation
System arising from an organizational
system
Industry arising from the structural
property of the industry
Tool arising from the technical
characteristic of the tool

The existing pathogen in the above case study

was the Project Managers style or practice. The
approach advocated by Busby and Hughes and
other strong bodies of evidence have led to the
development of the Thinc approach which is to
identify these pathogens or latent risk that
once identified, assessed and managed can lead
to fewer disputes and higher team performance.
Just as risks in technical areas of a project lie
dormant and are typically planned for,
sociological and psychological factors (which

usually manifest as team performance risks) also

have the potential to impact project success
often with devastating results and should be
planned for.

suggest the following simple but robust four

point approach:

Understanding these dimensions, how they

interact in the project environment context and
adopting a planned approach to mitigate them,
will therefore dramatically reduce project risk.

Right from the start of your project, strategies

should be put in place to set your project up for
success and mitigate risks which may cause a
non-performing team culture. We recommend
undertaking a Risk and Readiness review,
through facilitated interactive workshops to:

Yet despite the evidence, relationship or team

performance risks are rarely proactively
managed.
Why are relationships or team performance not
managed as risks?
We find that relationships are typically not
managed for the following reasons:
The lack of a sustainable process through
the project life cycle
The lack of a facilitator or coach with
basic understanding of human behaviour
in terms of forces and latent conditions.
The inability of the coach or facilitator to
engage at the most appropriate level to
be effective.
The belief that the project manager
should know how to manage people
issues
Limited or no focus from a risk
perspective
Sole focus on technical capability and
expertise
At a higher level, there is still within the industry
at large a lack of understanding of the
contribution that organisational psychology can
really make on outcomes.

A four point plan to create a high performance

team
To overcome these common preconceptions, we
recommend adopting a structured approach to
managing relationship risks and creating high
performing teams. We believe that any plan
should be grounded in project reality, with a
scope, schedule, budget, defined objectives, risks
and key performance indicators (KPIs). We

1. Plan for success

Create a project vision and agree

objectives
Define roles and responsibilities
Create governance and decision-making
structures
Identify the cultures & values of your
team
Define
the
most
appropriate
procurement model
Incorporate lessons learnt from past
project mistakes and achievements

2. Team Building/Development

The next step is to build a team that boasts the

right mix of strengths, skills and expertise to
achieve your specific project purpose. From our
experience working with clients across numerous sectors,
we believe that collaboratively identifying relationship
risks early on in the project process and monitoring
these risks using project management techniques is the
key to promoting positive relations and high performing
teams.

We believe relationship risks particularly on

major projects when there are a large number of
stakeholders involved should be considered as
critical, if not more important, than any other
project risk.
A major problem to date is that project
participants have been reluctant to raise risks in
any meaningful forum where they can be
addressed. However, once these factors are seen
as genuine project risks they can be objectively
addressed without any accusation or blame
attached to them. We therefore recommend
undertaking a planned, risk-based, collaborative

approach to preparing a relationship

management plan that identifies the risks:
Assess Right at the start of the process sit down
with the wider project team to collaboratively
analyse the risks associated with areas including:
governance;
roles
and
responsibilities;
communications
interfaces;
negotiations;
personalities; and team dynamics.

Map Map out the risks, design potential

practical solutions, include them on the risk
register and encourage mutual ownership of the
register. Build and agree processes around
different leadership abilities and communication
styles within the team.

Monitor Regularly review progress against the

agreed risks on the register through interviews
and workshops, particularly at critical project
milestones.

Mitigate Design interventions that resolve

issues through facilitated sessions, coaching and
training. Professional psychologists, mediators
and facilitators may be required, depending on
the situation.
To maximise project outcomes, this approach
should ideally be applied at the start of the
project process, as this helps to remove the
emotion
from
potentially
damaging
relationships/situations that may arise in the
future.
3. Coaching & control

Coaching is about working with individuals or leadership

teams to create a culture which contributes to successful
project delivery. We recommend adopting a structured

process to ensure performance against lead and

lag, to monitor project KPIs and to regularly
review the relationship management plan.
Coaching is also vital to:
Maintain team motivation, commitment
and focus
Promote effective communication

Eradicate inappropriate behaviours, such

as intimidation.
Crucially, the coaching approach adopted should
be tailored to the project environment and
supported
by
project
management
methodologies.
This
means
monitoring
performance against realistic KPIs, to ensure
progress is monitored and the desired objectives
are achieved. A variety of accredited team and
individual profile tools may be useful.

4. Close out

Its likely your organisation is running multiple

projects at any given time, so learning from them
is vital to improving performance. Organisations
must therefore take a proactive and collective
approach to gathering feedback. There is a
range of collective approaches, but we find that
getting the team together to discuss the project
has the biggest benefits.

An effective lessons learnt workshop will help

you to assess the teams performance; evaluate
the processes followed; identify positive and
negative attributes and implement an action plan
to improve future project performance. To
ensure your workshop is a success:

Dont let it become another ineffectual

meeting
Avoid the blame game, finger pointing
and being too subjective
Make sure you have a process to ensure
action
If you want to create a learning culture
dont make them optional

Conclusion
Communication, effective relationships and team
work have a major impact on project success yet
these factors have been ignored for too long as
technical people generally believe that if
something is not touchable or tangible, it is not
able to be measured. We have used a risk based,

planned approach in project delivery with

successful outcomes. The paradigm that needs to
be adopted by industry is that the underlying
latent risks that contribute to dispute and team
performance can be identified early and
managed. Secondly industry needs to demand
more rigor in implementing team development
processes to achieve a high performing,
collaborative team in project delivery. The
planned approach outlined in this paper achieves
that through establishing clear, measurable,
definable, achievable objectives and the
performance management process to achieve
those objectives.

Graham Scott
Senior Consultant

Performance Teams in projects. He has also

lectured at Masters level in; leadership; project
management and organisational psychology.
Grahams experience in construction, linked with
his understanding of project management
methodology and his qualifications and
experience in understanding human behaviour as
a Psychologist, gives him a unique perspective on
team development.

References
Busby. J. S., Hughes, E.J. (2004) Projects;
Pathogens; and incubation periods. International
Journal of Project Management 22, pp 425 434.

Hayden, W. M. Jr. (2004) Human systems

Engineering TM: A Trilogy; Part 1: Elephant in the
Living Room. Leadership and Management in
Engineering 2004. 4. 61 71.

Thinc

gscott@thinc.com.au
www.thinc.com.au

Graham Scott, Ba. App.Sc. Dip. Psych. Ma. Org.

Psych
Graham is a Senior Advisor with Thinc where he
works in developing and coaching High
Performance Teams in projects. Graham has a
long history working as a specialist in team
development in major projects. Prior to studying
Organisational Psychology to Masters level,
Graham worked in the construction and
infrastructure industries at trade, middle and
senior management levels. Over the past 18
years Graham has worked in Partnered Projects;
Alliance; ECI; EPCM and other forms of project
delivery as Facilitator; Coach; Relationship
Manager; and Performance Manager. Graham is
also a lecturer with Queensland University of
Technology where he lectures in Developing High

Katz Daniel Katz, Robert Louis Kahn (1978) The

Social Psychology of Organisations. Wiley, New
York.