Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T04:55:31.420Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A MULTILAYER GRAPH NETWORK-BASED TOOL FOR IDENTIFYING KEY PROJECT ACTORS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2023

Shlomi Efrati  and
Yoram Reich
Shlomi Efrati*
Affiliation:
Tel-Aviv University
Yoram Reich
Affiliation:
Tel-Aviv University
*
Efrati, Shlomi, Tel-Aviv University, Israel, shlomi.efrati@gmail.com

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

As the demands for new complex products/services increase, leading to strict constraints on budget and time-to-market, it is hard to learn from experience and improve practice. Improvement can be exercised in all aspects contributing to project management: the skill set of project personnel, the project structure, and the development process. People are the key asset of the project. Identifying the key participants in a project whose role is influential is important for improving the project's success. These people can receive support, remove their burdens, make sure their communication channels work well, etc. This paper offers a multilayer network-based method to examine an actor's influence in a project while combining two additional organizational key aspects: products and processes. Considering these three aspects together allows for a more informed evaluation of the actors' influence on the project. Using the insight from graph theory, we gain indicators related to each network actor. The influence of the actors in a multidimensional network makes it possible to present a clearer picture to decision-makers in the organization to make better decisions related to increasing the effectiveness of the development project.

Keywords

Project managementDesign managementOrganizational processesTeamwork
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 3: ICED23 , July 2023 , pp. 303 - 312
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Al-Ahmad, W., Al-Fagih, K., Khanfar, K., Alsamara, K., Abuleil, S., and Abu-Salem, H. (2009). A taxonomy of an IT project failure: Root causes. International Management Review, 5(1), 93.Google Scholar
Aleta, A., and Moreno, Y. (2019). Multilayer Networks in a Nutshell. Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics, 10(1), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-031218-013259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anthopoulos, L., Reddick, C. G., Giannakidou, I., and Mavridis, N. (2016). Why e-government projects fail? An analysis of the Healthcare. Gov website. Government Information Quarterly, 33(1), 161–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Attarzadeh, I., and Ow, S. H. (2008). Project management practices: The criteria for success or failure. Communications of the IBIMA, 1(28), 234–241.Google Scholar
Browning, T. R., Fricke, E., and Negele, H. (2006). Key concepts in modeling product development processes. Systems Engineering, 9(2), 104–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgers, J. H., Van Den Bosch, F. A., and Volberda, H. W. (2008). Why new business development projects fail: Coping with the differences of technological versus market knowledge. Long Range Planning, 41(1), 55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burt, R. S., Kilduff, M., and Tasselli, S. (2013). Social network analysis: Foundations and frontiers on advantage. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 527–547.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, Z., Dehmer, M., Emmert-Streib, F., and Shi, Y. (2018). Modern and Interdisciplinary Problems in Network Science: A Translational Research Perspective (Z. Chen, M. Dehmer, F. Emmert-Streib, and Y. Shi, Eds.; 1st ed.). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781351237307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coelho, J., and Valente, M. T. (2017). Why modern open source projects fail. 186–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cullen, K. L., Palus, C. J., and Appaneal, C. (2014). Developing Network Perspective Understanding the Basics of Social Networks and their Role in Leadership. White Paper, Center for Creative Leadership.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danilovic, M., and Browning, T. R. (2007). Managing complex product development projects with design structure matrices and domain mapping matrices. International Journal of Project Management, 25(3), 300–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diestel, R. (2000). Graph theory (2nd ed). Springer.Google Scholar
Dorsey, P. (2000). Top 10 reasons why systems projects fail. Retrieved February, 10, 2005.Google Scholar
Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 31–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engel, A., Browning, T. R., and Reich, Y. (2017). Designing Products for Adaptability: Insights from Four Industrial Cases: Designing Products for Adaptability. Decision Sciences, 48(5), 875–917. https://doi.org/10.1111/deci.12254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eppinger, S. D. (2002). Patterns of product development interactions.Google Scholar
Eppinger, S. D., and Browning, T. R. (2012). Design structure matrix methods and applications. MIT press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, F., and Falkowski, G. (1999). Organization network analysis: A tool for building a learning organization. Knowledge and Process Management, 6(1), 53–60.3.0.CO;2-Y>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffin, R. W., and Moorhead, G. (2011). Organizational behavior. Nelson Education.Google Scholar
Gronroos, C. (1994). From Marketing Mix to Relationship Marketing: Towards a Paradigm Shift in Marketing. Asia-Australia Marketing Journal, 2(1), 9–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1320-1646(94)70275-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gross, J. L., and Yellen, J. (2004). Handbook of graph theory. CRC press.Google Scholar
Haskell, A. C., and Breaznell, J. G. (1922). Graphic charts in business: How to make and use them. Codex book Company, Incorporated.Google Scholar
Hussain, A., and Mkpojiogu, E. O. (2016). Requirements: Towards an understanding on why software projects fail. 1761(1), 020046.Google Scholar
Kannengiesser, U. (2015). Integrating cross-organisational business processes based on a combined S-BPM/DSM approach. 17th IEEE Conference on Business Informatics, Lisbon, Portugal.Google Scholar
Kivelä, M., Arenas, A., Barthelemy, M., Gleeson, J. P., Moreno, Y., and Porter, M. A. (2014). Multilayer networks. Journal of Complex Networks, 2(3), 203–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
König, C., Kreimeyer, M., and Braun, T. (2008). Multiple-Domain Matrices as a Framework for Systematic Process Analysis. DSM 2008: Proceedings of the 10th International DSM Conference, Stockholm, Sweden, 11.-12.11. 2008.Google Scholar
Krackhardt, D., and Hanson, J. R. (1993). Informal networks. Harvard Business Review, 71(4), 104–111.Google ScholarPubMed
Kreimeyer, M., König, C., and Braun, T. (2008). Structural metrics to assess processes. 245–258.Google Scholar
Lin, C.-Y., Wu, L., Wen, Z., Tong, H., Griffiths-Fisher, V., Shi, L., and Lubensky, D. (2012). Social network analysis in enterprise. Proceedings of the IEEE, 100(9), 2759–2776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maurer, M. (2007). Structural awareness in complex product design.Google Scholar
Maurer, M., and Lindemann, U. (2008). The application of the Multiple-Domain Matrix: Considering multiple domains and dependency types in complex product design. 2487–2493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milosevic, D. Z. (2003). Project management toolbox: Tools and techniques for the practicing project manager. John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Novak, D., Rennaker, M., and Turner, P. (2011). Using organizational network analysis to improve integration across organizational boundaries. People and Strategy, 34(4), 32.Google Scholar
Pfeffer, J. (2020). Understanding power in organizations. In Organizational Collaboration (pp. 88–99). Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinto, J. K., and Mantel, S. J. (1990). The causes of project failure. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 37(4), 269–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reich, Y., and Subrahmanian, E. (2015). Designing PSI: an introduction to the PSI framework.Google Scholar
Reich, Y., and Subrahmanian, E. (2020). The PSI Framework and Theory of Design. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.Google Scholar
Steward, D. V. (1981). The design structure system: A method for managing the design of complex systems. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 3, 71–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sturm, R. E., and Antonakis, J. (2015). Interpersonal power: A review, critique, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 41(1), 136–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swan, J., Scarbrough, H., and Newell, S. (2010). Why don't (or do) organizations learn from projects? Management Learning, 41(3), 325–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tom, D. M. (1979). Structured Analysis and System Specification. Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Turner, J. R., and Müller, R. (2003). On the nature of the project as a temporary organization. International Journal of Project Management, 21(1), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Von Rosing, M., Von Scheel, H., and Scheer, A.-W. (2014). The complete business process handbook: Body of knowledge from process modeling to BPM (Vol. 1). Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Wasserman, S., Faust, K., and Urbana-Champaign), S. (University of I. W. (1994). Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, T. (2008). How do organizations learn lessons from projects—And do they? IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 55(2), 248–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yassine, A. (2004). An introduction to modeling and analyzing complex product development processes using the design structure matrix (DSM) method. Urbana, 51(9), 1–17.Google Scholar
Zbieg, A., Batorski, D., and Żak, B. (2016). How to Select Change Agents in Organizations? A Comparison of the Classical and Network Approaches. Problemy Zarządzania, 4/2016 (64), t. 2, 120–143.Google Scholar
Zigarmi, D., Roberts, T. P., and Alan Randolph, W. (2015). Employees’ perceived use of leader power and implications for affect and work intentions. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 26(4), 359–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar