UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE OF “VISION”

IN PROJECT SUCCESS
DALE CHRISTENSON, Executive Director, Leadership and Learning Centre, Public Service Agency,
Provincial Government of British Columbia, Canada and DPM (candidate), RMIT University

DEREK H.T. WALKER, Professor of Project Management and Program Director, Doctor of Project
Management at RMIT University

Introduction
ABSTRACT Leadership forms a significant body of knowledge, but we will only be focusing
on a very small but important area of this discipline due to limitations of the
Rigorous applications of project
scope of this paper. This paper focuses on an examination of the impact of the
management methodologies are
responsible, though only partially, for leadership construct of project vision on expected project outcomes.
project success. We argue, however, that a There has been considerable attention given to contributing factors to project
significant driver of project management success and failure. Included in these have been the examination of project man-
success is effective and intelligent ager competence, but little has been written about the concepts and constructs of
leadership communicated through an
the role of project leaders in developing and communicating a project vision and
inspiring vision of what the project is
meant to achieve and how it can make a the impact of this on project success. One of the most significant contributions
significant positive impact. that any leader can make to an organization or project is that of creating and clear-
An information technology case ly communicating a shared vision. Therefore, we argue in this paper that, “project
study project is presented to illustrate how vision” is a significant contributing factor to project success, and, the communica-
project vision provided and maintained
tion and maintenance of a project vision will impact project outcomes.
commitment to a complex project that was
judged successful when compared to Evidence from a case study of a major information technology project is
similar projects despite the difficulties offered to support this argument to reveal the importance of project vision and
described. This success was substantially clarify the impact of this influence upon successful project outcomes. We present
attributed to the project leadership evidence that while many of the accepted critical success factors were absent at
group’s use of a vision.
one time or another in this project, a strong project vision may have been signif-
Keywords: project management leader- icantly responsible for the ultimate success of the project. We also demonstrate
ship; vision; stakeholder management that while many variables are at play in any project, the development, communi-
cation and maintenance of a strong project vision may be the key to creating suc-
©2004 by the Project Management Institute cessful project outcomes. Therefore, development, communication and
Vol. 35, No. 3, 39-52, ISSN 8756-9728/03
maintenance of the project vision become a primary mission for project man-
agers when considering stakeholder management. As such, the traditional stake-
holder analysis must address the stakeholders’ influence on the project’s vision.
We conclude that to completely understand the impact of the project vision and
those who influence its evolution, one must also understand the organizational
structure, culture and stakeholder power relationships.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: First, we discuss the con-
cept of project vision, drawing upon the literature with particular relevance to cor-
porate vision followed by how a vision may be developed. In that section we
summarize and present a model for project vision development. We then provide

September 2004 Project Management Journal • 39

example from the literature of both fail- lated and dependent sub-systems is loosely coupled, there needs to be
ures and successes of vision develop- being tightly coupled (linearly linked, clear understanding of the cause-and-
ment and successes linked to our vision so that a break in one link severely effect loops that exist so that adverse
model. We follow this with a discussion affects other in the chain) and loosely action by one group can be traced in
of a case offered from one of the coupled (parallel links with opportu- the minds of that group to the impact
author’s direct experience, and in so nities to switch emphasis and direction the adverse action may have on others
doing, draw upon rich contextual first- of energy while maintaining momen- connected through the project process
hand knowledge. While we acknowl- tum) (Weick, 2001, p. 384). and how that might adversely affect
edge the potential danger of bias that Project management is about them later on. This requires project
using personal experience, we argue effecting a change through first segre- participants or stakeholders to under-
that our opinion-related data has been gating tasks into modules undertaken take a sense-making exercise (Weick,
subject to intense reflection and discus- by specialists with skills to undertake 2001, p. 184) and an envisioning exer-
sion with other direct project partici- those tasks and then integrating these cise focusing on what the end point
pants to validate opinion and to modules into a coherent whole should be, so that the weaving of
unearth any in-built biases of interpre- (Morris, 1994; PMI, 1996; Pinto & seemingly unconnected actions can be
tation. We then conclude our discussion Trailer, 1998; Cleland, 1999; clarified to understand how the parts
and draw attention to implications for Dinsmore, 1999; Turner, 1999; Walker form the whole.
project management practice. & Hampson, 2002). To understand a When this occurs, project partici-
loosely coupled system in a project pants might better see the logic of
Vision – Not Just a Series of Fancy management context, we could see a mutual adjustment and enacting cop-
Words But a Meaningful Model sequence of events unfolding uneven- ing mechanisms to provide a loosely
What is vision? The dictionary defini- ly, sporadically, discontinuously, and coupled system for the required flexi-
tion of vision is “the ability to think unpredictably—this is one view of the bility needed for projects that are high-
about or plan the future with imagina- challenge of project management. ly complex and tightly bound while
tion or wisdom” (Oxford, 2001, p. From a tightly coupled perspective, we living in a tightly coupled framework.
2066). Kotter (1995) describes vision could see project management excel- As Weick argues, “The real trick in high-
in terms of something that helps clari- lence as a smooth transition of logical- ly reliable systems is somehow to achieve
fy the direction in which to proceed— ly linked activities, each simultaneous centralization and decen-
this makes sense as the word has interdependent and each converging to tralization” (Weick, 2001, p. 340). This
implication of the sense of sight. be actioned when and where required. idea of systems reliability being linked
However, Kotter like many other writ- The intelligent use of both tight and to tight-loose coupling also relates to
ers on this subject, imbue vision with a loose coupling also conforms to the the notion of underlying assumptions
transformational quality that enables concept of project management matu- being the foundation of culture (dis-
not only pure change of X into Y but rity continuums (Kerzner, 2001, pp. cussed later in this paper–see Figure 4).
doing so with committed purpose and 1046-1049) where maturity is Unspoken assumptions can generate
enthusiasm. As Bennis and Nanus described at five levels of attainment. confusion, whereas explicit artifacts
(1987, p. 82) explain, “…vision articu- Unfortunately, as the above-cited proj- such as a vision statement provides the
lates a view of a realistic, credible, ect management experts attest, fre- link between assumption and a means
attractive future for the organisation quently subsystem parts are very to provide both tightly and loosely
[sic], a condition that is better in some difficult to coordinate and align, par- coupled systems.
important ways than what now exists.” ticularly as people and teams have a The organizational culture litera-
The concept of vision becomes one of variety of motivations, aspirations and ture identifies vision as being an
a tool or means to engender passion agenda that might and often does important contributor to the character-
and meaning to a project to meet the clash with best-for-project objectives. istics of a culture. Organizational cul-
envisioned end manifestation. One of the principal tasks that a ture’s most visible manifestation (often
Taken from the perspective of a project management leader needs to undecipherable) is artifacts such as sto-
tool to make sense out of a plan, Karl effectively perform is ensuring align- ries, history, image, identity and organi-
Weick provides many examples and ment of goals and resultant commit- zational structures. Underpinning these
illustrations of the power of vision to ment to project goals. Because projects are organizational values, and deeper
enable people to make sense out of a are tightly coupled, this situation again are the underlying assumptions
plan of action. He discusses how sys- requires all team members to be able (generally invisible) that are shared by
tems of sense-making are vitally to make sense of project goals so that the group in that culture. A vision state-
important when specialization and they can be prepared to support proj- ment may become an artifact, a docu-
decentralization results in segregation ect goals and internalize these as being ment describing project goals and
of people and teams and differentia- aligned with their own. Further, aspiration. This will not have meaning
tion of processes in undertaking an because much of the interaction unless it reflects the values of the cul-
activity. He talks about highly interre- between project teams and subsystems ture concerned.

40 • Project Management Journal September 2004

 Values are those behaviors that are ment commentators have observed, ing the change, or simplify the per-
cherished by members of the culture or “The most significant success factor for ceived problem triggering change in
subculture. So that, for example, a project teams is that they have a com- terms that when seen in retrospect,
project vision may state that people mon and shared idea of what difference appear ridiculous. The phrase “who
will treat each other with integrity and they are trying to make as a result of the would have foresaw this … or who could
respect, avoiding blame and litigation. project. Such a vision can be built up by have anticipated that…” are often used,
However, if that organization has a his- exploring questions with stakeholders yet in such cases the problem and
tory of scapegoating, seeking opportu- and project team members, such as: change action is often quite clear to
nities for making claims against • How will this project make a dif- those not clouded by Anxiety Type 1.
project supply-chain members and ference to the organisation [sic]? Unfortunately, Anxiety Type 1 behav-
conducting a paper trail to cover them- • How would we know that this iors are universal and all too evident
selves at every opportunity, then a con- project has been highly successful? with a management response to
flict arises between the vision • What in our wildest dreams mount more pressure to conform to
statement artifact and the culture’s would you like this project to the expected response. This can exacer-
value system. Clearly, there is a palpa- achieve?” (Briner, Hastings, & bate the situation as it drives people
ble link between values and artifacts. Geddes et al. 1996, p. 89). towards panic, and when people are
Similarly, values are palpably under severe stress (panic) they revert
linked to assumptions. The above- It is important to discuss the basis to earlier patterns of learning even
illustrated example of defensive behav- of change management because proj- when these patterns are no longer
iors, such as creating a paper trail, ects are about instigating a process or effective or appropriate (Weick, 2001).
being unhelpfully bureaucratic or product change (Cleland, 1999). The This leaves people in a bind. They need
identifying scapegoats, may be derived interesting link between change and to change and update their knowledge,
from a strong foundation in assump- vision is that the vision statement clear- but this is a painful and energy absorb-
tions that other supply-chain partners ly seeks to convince its audience that ing process.
will take advantage of an organization. the change is worthwhile and indeed Anxiety Type 2, the fear, shame, or
The need to expose and unearth such bestows benefits — it also indicates guilt associated with not learning any-
assumptions so that they can be under- what will be different or describes a dif- thing new, particularly when survival is
stood and dealt with is a fundamental ferent end state (change). Change also challenged without action being taken,
feature of partnering and alliancing — invokes anxiety because it challenges (Schein, 1993, p. 88) is the type of
an increasingly popular approach to the status quo and requires expenditure anxiety that change activists and lead-
managing complex projects (Bennett & of transformational energy. ers need to cultivate. Moreover, they
Jayes, 1995; CII, 1996; Lenard, Bowen- Two different types of anxiety have need to ensure that Anxiety Type 2
James, Thompson & Anderson,. 1996; been identified as affecting people’s pressure is greater than Anxiety Type 1.
Doz & Hamel, 1998; Lendrum, 1998; readiness for change (Schein, 1993). In This is uncomfortable to many organi-
Walker & Hampson, 2002). this paper’s context of discussing proj- zations because it requires expensive
Creating an effective project vision ect vision, we can also look at project and extensive support and resourcing
requires excellent communication vision as fulfilling a changed approach to provide the escape route from this
skills and a deep understanding of to participating in the project. This form of anxiety. It is easy to see why
both organizational culture and the change is usually moving from a busi- many organizations would opt for a
history and trigger mechanisms that ness-as-usual expectation to striving strategy of putting pressure on individ-
create underlying assumptions of indi- for excellence by aspiration to make a uals or business units (BUs) and then
viduals and groups comprising project palpable and positive impact. A project leaving them to sort out the dilemma
teams. A project vision can be an arti- vision concept, encapsulated in a ”on the cheap” by not providing ade-
fact that defines the project’s soul so vision statement, often seeks to moti- quate support systems. It is instructive
that it anchors project participants vate and inspire team members and that this strategy seems to almost
through their core values to a project other stakeholders to positively partic- always cost more through failed plans,
outcome that all can relate to. Clearly, ipate and shed negative behaviors dreams and commitments inhibiting
this is a difficult task requiring intelli- (such as naked self-interest) in favor of delivery of the expected results. The
gence and wisdom on the part of proj- the common good, resulting in wide- result is frequently blame and negativ-
ect leaders. Crafting a vision requires spread benefit. ity. If Anxiety Type 2 is responded to
insights into the underlying assump- Anxiety Type 1 is the feeling associ- through a project vision, then we may
tions that determine values and calls ated with an inability or unwillingness see that project leaders can make a
for creating artifacts that can be accept- to learn something new because it positive difference through providing
ed and internalized. appears too difficult or confronting enabling support systems. Creating
The role of the vision artifact is (Schein, 1993, p. 86). In this situation Anxiety Type 2 grabs attention and is
well recognized as a focus for manag- we deny the problem exists, search to consistent with what knowledge man-
ing projects. Leading project manage- blame others for the symptoms requir- agement gurus (Nonaka & Takeuchi

September 2004 Project Management Journal • 41

1995) refer to as providing a shock 2. It must be motivational: It must notably, the contingency approach to
impetus to trigger improvement. make a convincing case for fol- leadership maintains that the style of
Anxiety Type 2 provides a trigger to lowing the project vision con- leadership is principally determined by
search for a way out of the Anxiety cept that can be internalized by the maturity of followers. Briefly,
Type 1 dilemma. Anxiety Type 2 project stakeholders and that maturity relates to the degree of com-
impacts must be greater than Anxiety provides a compelling value mitment and the degree of capability
Type 1 so that the project leader needs proposition of followers to do what is required of
to prepare a general solution outline 3. It must be credible: It must be them (Hersey, Blanchard & Johnson,
(the project vision statement) that consistent with stakeholder cul- 1996, p. 208). Four leadership styles
enables people to find their own way tures or sub-cultures to appeal were developed around this concept:
to channel their energies and commit- at the assumptions and values • Style 1 involves using direct
ment to move from a position of level so that the vision state- forms of power to coerce follow-
defensiveness to one of confidently ment artifact resonates with ers into following instructions in
addressing the change deployment them; situations where either commit-
that constitutes the project in question. 4. It must be demanding and chal- ment is largely absent and abili-
The characteristics of a company lenging: It should be proactive ty is limited so specific
vision make a useful model. A well- to facilitate teams to work instructions must be given under
constructed vision comprises two ele- smarter and more effectively, close supervision
ments, the core ideology and perhaps identifying stretch • Style 2 involves explaining the
envisaged future (Collins & Porras, goals. goals and providing opportuni-
1996). The core ideology comprises ties for clarification and building
core values and core purpose. Core Note that vision and mission state- solutions to identified problems
organizational culture values have ments may get confused and under- • Style 3 involves sharing and can-
been discussed earlier in this paper. stood as synonymous by some vassing ideas and cooperatively
Sometimes this is explained in terms academics in this area of study. Mission making decisions with the lead-
of the ”X way.” The envisioned future may be thought of more both in terms ers as facilitators
is what has been termed a big, hairy, of goals and objectives in an action • Style 4 involves identifying the
audacious goal (BHAG). It is usually sense, whereas vision may be thought goals and then turning over
described vividly and, as argued by of as a state of being or end state. responsibility for finding ways
(Collins & Porras, 1996), BHAGs are to achieve these goals by the
needed as stretch goals to provide a Vision and Transformational Leadership teams involved.
framework for progressing towards the The business literature contains count-
envisioned future. Core purpose is less examples of the nature of leader- Styles 3 and 4 do represent a more
often defined in terms of a mission ship, and there appears to be a broad empowered manner for leaders to influ-
statement. They also observe that the consensus that leadership and man- ence followers, however each of these
basic dynamic of visionary companies agement are both different in tasks styles implies a somewhat transactional
is to preserve the core culture and pur- undertaken and have different aims. leadership style—the leader provides
pose and to stimulate progress towards Whereas managing is about the plan- resources and rewards for followers to
the envisioned future. Stretch goals ning for the deployment of resources accomplish the required tasks.
should not encourage people to work to achieve an objective, leading is Transformational leadership is
harder but work smarter often through about using “power to influence the defined in terms of the four I’s, (Bass &
more effectively sharing and leveraging thoughts and actions of others” Avolio, 1994, p. 2; Avolio, 1996 p. 5)
knowledge (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; (Zaleznik, 1998, p. 63). Management that is, as “when leaders:
Davenport & Prusak, 2000). is also seen to be about coping with • Stimulate interest among colleagues
Both a project vision and an orga- complexity and bring relative order out and followers to view their work
nizational vision share many common of chaos, whereas leading challenges from new perspectives (Individual
characteristics. However, a project the status quo and copes with change consideration)
vision is more complex because projects by setting a direction and aligning peo- • Generate awareness of the mission
use multiple temporary organizations, ple’s motivation and abilities through or vision of the team and organiza-
each with their own cultures and sub- effective communication of the chosen tion (Intellectual stimulation)
cultures. This notwithstanding, we direction (Kotter, 1998, p. 41). Thus, • Develop colleagues and followers to
argue that a project vision should have leaders use vision-making and vision- higher levels of ability and potential
the following characteristics: communicating as their tools to and; (Idealised [sic] influence)
1. It must be understood: It must achieve strategic goals. • Motivate colleagues and followers
capture the core purpose, preferred The link between leaders and fol- to look beyond their own interest
future state and essence of the lowers is an interesting one that has toward those that will benefit the
project objectives, its raison d’être also attracted much attention. Most group (Inspirational motivation).”

42 • Project Management Journal September 2004

 The preceding four I’s also match (Bass, 1985, p. 31). This seems to als or small groups who proactively
our four vision characteristics stated address the Type 2 Anxiety discussed seek to establish a case for the project
earlier. The leadership literature by Schein (1993). Either a charismatic development) will need to identify
acknowledges advantages inherent in individual or a coherently focused and assemble a stakeholder reference
adopting a transformational approach stakeholder reference group can group to help define goals. This group
as it appeals to more powerful intrinsic achieve this. We argue that a well-cho- will then source and choose a project
motivational energy that transcends sen stakeholder reference group might leader and this reference group; the
self-interest, and thus is better placed be better positioned than a charismat- project champion and project leader
to be an effective vehicle for delivering ic leader to develop the vision because will then define goals and develop the
outcomes for multiple stakeholders of the wider experience, diversity of project vision.
(Bass & Avolio, 1994; Avolio, 1996; knowledge and perspective and fuller In the less-complex situation illus-
Bennis & Nanus, 1997). In at least one appreciation of stakeholder con- trated in Figure 2, a project champion
study involving data gathered from stituencies that a truly representative has a sound understanding and grasp
over 2,000 managers and employees at and intelligent reference group can of the project goals and can source and
a major Australian bank, researchers offer. Thus while transformational appoint a project leader. The leader
found strong evidence associating leadership can be linked to charisma, can then identify relevant stakeholders
group cohesion with transformational it is not necessarily dependent upon it. with a view to form a reference group
leadership (Carless, Mann & Wearing, to work with the project leader to
l1996). This indicates that this concept Developing and Crafting a Project Vision develop a vision. Whichever approach
can be translated effectively to devel- The development of a project vision is is adopted, the vision can be devel-
oping an effective and appealing vision complex and occurs in a number of oped with the insights of relevant
for managing projects, because proj- ways. One way is illustrated in Figure 1. stakeholder representatives. This
ects require a strong cohesive team
focus on the desired project outcomes.
However, what is particularly rele-
Identifies
vant to project organizations where originator
multiple stakeholders have varying Possibilities for Project stakeholders
project vision champion
specific ideals of their desired project
outcome is that a transformational
leadership is insufficient by itself.
Project leader Forms an
Visions need to be communicated Type of project appointed originator stakeholder
clearly and simply, often in terms of a reference group
metaphor with a powerful visual
image or sensual symbol of achieve- Develops a
ment that resonates with those stake- project vision
+ brief
holders required to commit to
delivering these outcomes (Bennis and
Nanus, 1997, p. 100). One vital skill of Figure 1. One situation for developing a project vision
project management leaders is to facil-
itate the development of a powerful The type of project influences the process facilitates not only group input
project vision as well as to develop a way that a project vision may develop. and diversity of insights for building a
communications strategy that effec- Project goals and delivery methods credible solution, but also develop-
tively explains and engenders commit- may be well defined and this matrix ment of stakeholder and team under-
ment, rather than just compliance to has been used to define project types standing. This is the process of culture
the vision’s delivery. (Turner and Cochrane 1993). The sim- creation—of developing the assump-
This may be accomplished plest situation is where the goals are tions that underpin values, which
through a charismatic approach where relatively clear and the delivery meth- results in identifying the artifacts of
the leader becomes teacher, mentor, ods well understood. The most com- culture (Schein, 1985). If this process
coach reformer or revolutionary, but plex and complicated projects are is effectively undertaken, then it can
not all projects can expect to attract characterized by ill-defined goals as facilitate a clear understanding of
such an individual to contribute these well as uncertainty surrounding deliv- stakeholder goals and their aspirations
powerful gifts. Transformational lead- ery methods. Whatever the situation for the project; it can inspired motiva-
ership, however, is about leaders “struc- regarding goal definition is has an tion and build credibility to provide
turing and articulating problems for impact on the possibilities for develop- the impetus for designing challenges
followers, enabling the followers to more ing a project vision. If the goals are rel- that spur innovation.
easily comprehend problems so that they atively ill-defined, any potential Vision development appears to be
can more effectively deal with them” project champion (i.e., that individu- developed through a set stage of events

September 2004 Project Management Journal • 43

 groups to ensure that the vision is as
Identifies clearly understood in terms of impacts
originator and influences as possible.
Possibilities for Project stakeholders
project vision champion It is at this point that a vision real-
ity check can take place to ensure that
the vision is valid to stakeholders. This
Project leader is generally undertaken to varying lev-
Forms an
Type of project appointed originator stakeholder els of success. In some cases, the proj-
reference group ect management group assumes much
and stakeholders may not be consult-
Develops a ed. In other cases, feuding stakeholder
project vision
groups may generate a paralysis. In
+ brief
between lies the ”reasonable” path.
The outcome of step 5 is the develop-
Figure 2. Less complex situation for developing a project vision ment of the project vision as articulat-
ed (or often inferred). This has inputs
that occur in varying levels of intensity. in terms of impact upon stakeholder from management policy and external
The process begins either formally or groups and priority weightings can be management strategy, for example
informally with a stakeholder vision established. It is important to under- from legal or regulatory agencies. Once
beginning to emerge so that some pre- stand that negotiations should be the Vision is communicated as indicat-
ferred future becomes evident, general- undertaken on a win-win basis ed in step 12, then monitoring can
ly through a clouded or foggy process because once the implications of vari- take place. This can consist of checking
of struggling to understand fundamen- ous priorities are explored and under- how effective the vision communica-
tal issues affecting the project. If stake- stood, often unintended consequences tion strategy has been (step 13); the
holders are gathered together as can be avoided. A project manager implications of the vision through
indicated in Figures 1 or 2, then stake- who has the skills to both unearth con- monitoring project sub-culture reac-
holder representatives can either claim flicting priority impacts and facilitate tions (steps 14 and 15); and revisiting
a voice (if there is a need to be improved prioritization of objectives the periodically the relevance of the
assertive), or the project management can avoid many potential intra-stake- vision. It would be detrimental to the
representative can actively encourage holder disputes. The vision can then be project to overlook steps 16 and 17, as
and nurture this voice to be heard (if developed (step 5 in Figure 3) using a both priorities and relevance change
the stakeholder group is reticent or transformational leadership style that often during long or complex projects.
passive). Either way, project vision pri- addresses the four I’s and the suggested The model of project vision gener-
orities can be established. four characteristics of a good project ation illustrated in Figures 1 and 2 and
A process of negotiation can take vision. This may be best to be under- the development of a vision statement
place whereby these can be evaluated taken through stakeholder reference as illustrated in Figure 3 occurs in vary-
ing degrees from virtually never to very
substantially. We argue that the degree
1. Stakeholders
2. Identify 3. Stakeholder to which Figure 3 model is followed,
stakeholder representatives
image of preferred representatives rate their that is, the level of genuinely empow-
future priorities priorities 4. Negotiations ered and positive interaction between
and discussions about
6.1. Executive
implications of vision project stakeholders and the project
element priority
strategic alignment weightings management team, has a direct impact
check
6. Stakeholders
reference group
5. Develop
vision
upon the quality of a project vision.
reality check statement 17. Stakeholders This quality determines perceptions of
reference group
9. Training reality check how well the vision is understood by
8. Project and development
management policy stakeholders, how the vision appeals
strategy 7. Develop 16. Monitor
vision communication
10. Management vision to motivational instincts, how credible
strategy relevance
process the vision appears, and how challeng-
policy
11. External ing the vision can be without appear-
management 12. Deploy
strategy vision
ing too demanding to be seen as
15. Monitor
13. Monitor strategy achievable.
impact on project
vision deployment
sub-cultures
performance Intelligent project vision state-
14. Vision
deployment ments can be evaluated in this light for
implications
their effectiveness of being likely to
achieve the vision objectives. We argue
Figure 3. Model of vision development process that the key to developing an effective

44 • Project Management Journal September 2004

project vision is to make objectives case was an unmitigated disaster and ed senior level personnel called facili-
and purpose clearly understood, to lack of a credible and reliable vision tators. These facilitators visited each
inspire motivation, and to ensure that was cited as a substantially cause. business unit (BU) throughout the
the project vision is credible and chal- One interesting example reported global organization to help the BUs
lenging. All this is accomplished by Nigel Holden tells how a company adopt standard approaches in a way
through organizational and ethnic cul- vision for global knowledge-sharing that shared knowledge about best
tural frameworks and mental models and use of a common approach to practices developed within other BUs,
that enable people to relate to each operating procedures led to an innova- and to improve communication and
other, understand each other’s world- tive process of creating the concept of a transfer of values across the organiza-
views and share assumptions that cre- corporate facilitator. These facilitators tion. Thus, Novo Nordisk ”walked-the-
ate shared values that make sense of were tasked with ensuring that the cor- talk” by developing its vision and
cultural artifacts such as stories, a proj- porate culture of a Danish-based glob- acting upon it with credible, strong
ect vision and other forms of group al pharmaceutical and health product leadership models that were credible,
”branding.” enterprise. the ”Novo Nordisk Way of and through its delivery model of facil-
Figure 4 illustrates our model of Management,“ was spread across its itation and motivated BU commit-
vision effectiveness. Understanding, global operations (Holden, 2002, p. ment and support. It should be noted
motivation, credibility and challenge 110). The ”Vision 21 purpose” is cited that this organization experimented
can move the emotional attachment as “Our business is to discover and with the facilitator concept to activate
that people feel. This can range from a market products which satisfy real its vision in late 1996 and that as of
vision statement being seen as a super- needs—improving the way people live 1999, the concept was judged a success
ficial document or as a cultural artifact and work. We find better ways to fight and it was continued and improved
through the vision providing a resonat- the burdens of disease and to provide (Holden, 2002, p. 129). Key aspects
ing truth that taps into the very core sustainable biological solutions to relating to its vision were that the
depths of a culture or sub-culture. Each industrial problems.” The company’s change program could be viewed as an
and every project has a genesis in a real way includes directions on how they initial three-year project that was suc-
need. This need must be articulated to approach implementation of proce- cessfully completed. It was clearly
ensure that it receives its due and just dures for accountability, being ambi- understood, inspired motivation, was
attention and resource allocation. tious for excellence, openness and credible and challenging.
We argue that much of the skill of honesty, customer focus, readiness for Another case study cited by
project management leadership is change, and social responsibility Holden (2002) relates to Konosuke
about ensuring that the project need is (Holden, 2002, p. 107). Matsushita (KM, as he became
adequately articulated into a project In this case, Vision 21 was imple- known), the founder of the Japanese
vision statement that facilitates enthusi- mented through the widespread adop- global company Matsushita, as having
asm and commitment for its successful tion of the Novo Nordisk Way of elaborated his organization’s raison
realization. In this way, a deep under- Management using 14 specially select- d’être in ”the basic management objec-
standing of the value of the project, its
motivational potential for those
involved, and its credibility as a worth- Extent of Degree of
Extent of Motivation Credibility Degree of Stretch Goals
while endeavor that aspires to achieve a Understanding Challenging the Status Quo
best-in-class outcome can be encom- + Encouraging Innovation
passed through the artifact of the vision.

Case Examples from the Literature of

Successful and Failed Vision
There are innumerable cases that could ARTIFACTS Low
ity

be discussed here but we have chosen

tens

to seek out only a few salient ones

of In

from the literature that appear to typi-

vel

fy examples of the good and the bad.

e

Deeper
re L

We have chosen one case where all VALUES

ultu

four of the above conditions seem to

C

have been globally met, and one case

red

where they all appear to be met within

Sha

Japan, but due to difficulties in the ASSUMPTIONS Taproot

Japanese historical and ethnic cultural
context being transferable, was less
successful than the first case. The third Figure 4. Project vision effectiveness

September 2004 Project Management Journal • 45

tive” and ”the company creed.” These facts such as a corporate vision. more tightly coupled, it merely acceler-
are quoted respectively as We have provided two successful ates the manifestation of the present-
“Recognizing our responsibility as examples of a vision deployment ing problems (Weick, 2001, p. 235).
industrialists, we will devote ourselves (accepting the caveat of Matsushita’s Thus the project as described by
to the progress and development of mixed success with transferring ethical Drummond (1998) based upon her
society and the well-being of people values from a core ethnic culture to significant sources of data and reports
through our business activities, there- local affiliates in non-Japanese Bus). indicate that the project vision: was
by enhancing the quality of life We will now provide a well-cited exam- poorly understood, inspired lack of
throughout the world,” and “Progress ple of a spectacular failure of an IT motivation, was not credible, and was
and development can be realized only project to illustrate how a lack of challenging in a negative and not pos-
through the combined efforts and vision significantly contributed strong- itive way. The result of project failure
cooperation of each employee of our ly to it failure (Drummond, 1998). could be expected from the four
company. United in spirit, we pledge The following contains a summary of dimensions of vision development
to perform our corporate duties with aspects of this case: suggested by our analysis. If all project
dedication, diligence and integrity” The Taurus project was proposed team members and stakeholders had a
(Holden, 2002, p. 141). This indicates for the UK Stock Exchange to provide clear vision of the purpose of the proj-
the types of messages and organiza- an online processing of share trading ect, Taurus’s spectacular failure could
tional culture artifacts that have been and other ancillary activities. The £500 have been avoided.
developed to facilitate linking vision million project would later be aban- This case strongly indicates that
with action. doned in 1993. It was a highly complex the role of project leadership is pivotal.
An interesting aspect relating to project that was demanded urgently However, while the project manage-
developing a vision is that KM devel- with the securities industry requiring ment literature appears to be dominat-
oped Matsushita’s value system based an 18-month time frame for design, ed by the importance of techniques
upon his own philosophy and experi- development, and deployment. A stan- used to manage projects, there is a
ences of the Japan of the 1920s and dard software package that was decided noticeable gap in the literature relating
1930s. This creed was based upon a upon as the basis for the system was to the impact of project leadership and
humanist tradition and in fact pre- modified significantly, but the degree the development of a project vision
dated constructs of social responsibili- of modification and the clarity of what that unites project teams and supply
ty and triple bottom line (social, were to be the final features were chain partners as a critical success fac-
economic, and environment) by over unclear, ill-defined, and subject to tor for projects.
50 years. His vision that he persuaded much uncertainty. This added to the
his entire company to adopt was based confusion surrounding what the sys- The Case Study
upon service to the public, fairness and tem was meant to look like. Joint Information Management System
honesty, teamwork for the common Further, the confusion and unreal- (JIMS) was started in the early 1990’s
cause, uniting effort for improvement istic demand on delivery time grew as to address the business need for a cen-
and courtesy and humility (Holden, those responsible for delivery slipped tral repository of information for a
2002, p. 143). He championed and into being unmotivated and skeptical government agency involving four
nurtured that vision to the extent that about the prospect of any measure of interrelated elements of a government
it became a corporate scripture. It was success. Each month that went by, the service delivery system in which data
clearly understood by the Japanese project seemed to be no further would be gathered about clients that
employees (assisted by their instinctive advanced because the needs and could be shared (subject to strict priva-
and tacit knowledge of Japanese histo- demands for change increased and cy and confidentiality arrangements)
ry and culture), inspired motivation, much of the work produced became to enhance effectiveness of informa-
and was credible and challenging. useless due to these change requests. tion management—to benefit both
Holden (2002) makes a cautionary Also, the market changed from ”bull” client and state interests. An informal
note that is highly relevant to this to ”bear.” This highlights the impor- project was initiated to deal with the
paper, namely, that the Matsushita tance of a vision being subject to ”real- issue of why individual key stakehold-
vision was poorly understood by its ity checks” as described in Figure 3 ers did not have an effective or uni-
non-Japanese employees, because (steps 6 and 17). The delivery team form means to share information.
many of the embedded cultural values was certainly challenged, but not by The project is typical of the need
and assumptions were purely Japanese stretch targets designed to initiate for many service organizations with
(and moreover related to the specific innovation, but by continual demands many interlinked but separately oper-
historical context of Japan’s history of to work harder to catch up with lost ating entities to share vital authorized
1920s to post-war and through to the progress. When a system is failing to information. A goal is to avoid dupli-
modern day). This reinforces the work due to a malfunctioning system cation, information entry and mainte-
embeddedness of history in develop- dynamic, then continued, increasing nance errors, and wasted management
ing cultural values that support arti- resource inputs or making the system energy in establishing duplicated

46 • Project Management Journal September 2004

information systems. The original ranks of the Information Technology other will negate the positive impact of
vision was to develop a simple central- Division, a central agency providing the other: For instance, the right struc-
ized case tracking database system. technology support to all government ture cannot work with the wrong lead-
However, as is often the case in devel- branches. Key stakeholders had repre- ers, and the right leaders cannot make
oping such systems, as additional sentation on all committees and sub- a flawed leadership structure work.
requirements were identified, the committees. Project mangers were Therefore, a successful project must
grander idea of a System for Case selected for each core agency and des- have both an appropriate leadership
Integrated Processing (SCIP) was ignated as representative key stake- structure and the individual leaders
spawned, and an official project was holders. People selected to be project must have the leadership skills and
sanctioned. managers, however, had no formal abilities, and personal motivation, to
Although the vision has remained training to meet their new responsibil- make it work.
fairly constant over the 10-year life of ity and title. Their authority was uncer- Interestingly, the intent of JIMS
the project thus far, the project man- tain within their respective agencies was not to have unskilled managers in
agement structure matured from a and dubious within the context of the these roles. The assumption was that
loose group of individuals with a good project management structure. It they could benefit from “on-the-job”
idea (referring to SCIP) to a formal appeared that the executive members training and be successful by learning
project management structure with a of the individual agencies still retained as they went. However, the intangible
widely understood vision (referring to conduct of decision-making and cost of this steep learning curve and
JIMS). This is typical of what has been resource allocation and left only rou- professional stress resulting from on-
described as working within the tine management functions to the the-job project management training
”whitespace” in unofficial projects that project managers. Figure 5 illustrates is, in our view only recoverable in
test the waters, with good ideas being the project leadership structure. organizations where project manage-
developed in an incubator before
being adopted as officially sanctioned
project ”blackspace”—fully funded,
Client Subcommittees
resourced and subject to the relevant department departments,
corporate management systems representatives specialized groups
(Maletz & Nohira, 2001).
With this movement towards
greater structure came greater rigidity Strong
of decision-making, less creativity in Software owners Impact
Steering committee
problem solving, and ultimately an Weak
project sponsor Impact
advocacy positioning of stakeholders.
Strong
The movement to the “blackspace” was Influence
required to develop the business
requirements and business case(s) so General Project manager
the project could move forward to an community
official funding stage of development. Other
The creation of the vision was a joint clients
Employees
effort and there was a reasonable
expectation that it was also a shared
vision. However, it quickly became
apparent that the mission, the ultimate Figure 5. JIMS stakeholder influence and impact map
means to achieve this vision, was
mired in the dilemma of key stake- In essence, assigned project man- ment recruits are cycled from one proj-
holders all desiring separate business agers had none of the conditions, ect to the next regularly, and where a
requirement sessions. including an organizational career peer support network is in place to
The formal project management structure to reward project managers, assist with this important mentoring
structure was composed of a steering that Sauer, Liu and Johnston et al process. Also as a consequence, in
committee and various subcommittees (2001, p. 45) indicate is necessary to organizations where no recurring proj-
(business change council, change increase the probability of project suc- ect management assignments are pos-
request, configuration, and training). cess. The lessons to be learned here is sible, this investment in training
The chairperson of JIMS Steering to separate the actual leadership struc- would be lost nevertheless.
Committee, a senior Executive from ture from the individual skills and The age-old problem of a func-
one of the core agencies, acted as the capabilities of the managers in those tional versus a matrix organization
executive sponsor. A full-time project positions as important success factors. also becomes apparent if full-time
manager was assigned from within the The presence or absence of one or the resources assigned to a project remain

September 2004 Project Management Journal • 47

under the supervision of their own design specifications approved and ship terms of reference. Although
organizations rather than reporting to proof of concept modules displayed, most agencies indicated they were
the overall project manager. In some front end core agencies participating in committed to the project, an inspec-
parts of the organizations this the system still had the option to walk tion of project documents finds little
changed, but for the most part this away from the project if they didn’t proof of action on this commitment.
dynamic remained throughout JIMS. like it. It soon became apparent to An essential element of the founda-
Assigned project managers therefore everyone that the project had only cur- tion necessary to support project suc-
only began to have greater moral sory buy-in from one key stakeholder cess was missing.
authority and control over the projects with no firm commitment to the Apart from the overall vision
as their experience grew and the host vision. Unfortunately due to the pro- issue, there is always the seemingly
agencies came to accept the expertise ject’s leadership structure, there was no intractable problem of stakeholder
of dedicated project managers and the mechanism to preserve their continued behavior being more reflective of their
application of project management participation. Where they remained individual agency or department
principles when they experienced the conceptually committed to the vision, interests, rather than the good of the
benefits of managing JIMS this way. they still walked away from the mis- overall project. Endemic leadership
The credibility of the vision began to sion of creating a one-write system (to behavior to accommodate these
unravel as the stakeholders began to enter data once then share it across the requests, rather than to challenge
question the value of the integrated wider system) in preference to their them effectively, meant there were
information management solution, own system. often questionable corporate benefits
while the ability of a project manager In retrospect, this stakeholder may for some aspects of the overall project.
with sufficient authority and influence not have understood its own needs or, Fortuitously, while the vision had
to maintain the original vision waned at a minimum, did not appreciate the gaps, there was considerable docu-
and declined due in part to the per- priority of its operational need for a mentation of end benefits to support
ceived relevance of the project manag- record management system rather than continued project funding.
er position and role. a case tracking system. The difference Unfortunately, the dubious link
Although a formal project man- between the two systems is not neces- between these end benefits (stated pri-
agement structure was adopted for sarily that significant, but this stake- marily to achieve funding) were not
JIMS, the project seems to have holder realized that it is investing in a entwined with the vision, creating
required a more flexible approach to system that would address only 20 per- endless tension around internal proj-
accommodate both the desire of indi- cent of its workload, whereas 80 per- ect decision-making.
vidual stakeholders to have personal cent of its workload is never forwarded At the time, project leadership was
influence while mitigating the unfore- to one of the other prime stakeholder clearly being driven by the central sup-
seen risks that this structure actually agencies. This reduced the credibility port agency based on technological
allows. As Maletz and Nohira (2001) of the vision for that particular stake- requirements to eliminate a number of
explain, to mitigate this often requires holder because it failed to motivate or different legacy systems. These systems
a creative approach that necessitates inspire it to be part of an information had become undesirable as they were
moving outside the formal structure system in which it may be generating costly to maintain, built with different
but remaining within the boundaries front-end effort for data and informa- software applications, unreliable, and
of the original vision. Once again, this tion entry and yet gaining no tangible did not interface with each other—yet,
reinforces the need for a central vision benefits or rewards. This attitude is executive sponsorship was not forth-
that is compelling and which everyone typical in many processes where infor- coming from all of these core agencies.
will support, regardless of the political mation that one party can easily gain is Again and most notably, one core
and organizational issues that arise. not ”paid for,” so that it makes little stakeholder was fractured in its sup-
Achieving this in practice was not easy sense to that group (based on a trans- port. Lack of executive sponsorship as
when the entire premise of the JIMS actional approach) to expend scarce identified by Ulfelder (2001, p. 3) is
system was to link a series of separate resources to gather data or information the number-one way information tech-
and normally serial government that others along the supply chain may nology projects fail; further, “The prob-
processes. For each part of the process, benefit from. In this sense, the remedy lem is that too many business
a key stakeholder or core agency need- may be argued to lie in the system executives view IT project, . . . as mere
ed to input data that was then accept- rewards and resourcing design, and (albeit expensive) technology chal-
ed by another key stakeholder or not through demonizing or criticizing lenges.” It is very conceivable that JIMS
agency to use or add value to the infor- a particular stakeholder for being ”silo- was seen as just such an unwelcome
mation input flow continuing through minded” or selfish. and threatening challenge, rather than
the service-provision business model. Attempts to influence continued a welcome process improvement
Although the vision was apparent- participation were unsuccessful, as no opportunity. Thus, working smarter
ly understood, business requirements structure of dispute resolution was in with stretch goals to improve the over-
were identified, project charters signed, place or contemplated in the leader- all system was not evident.

48 • Project Management Journal September 2004

 The philosophies of independence or mission could have evolved to better manage the risks that these
exacerbated the divisive nature of key retain their participation. It is possible stakeholders presented to the project.
stakeholders’ internal agendas. The that another approach may have been Briner et al. (1996) identify three
project yearned for a transformational available but was not employed. groups of stakeholders: internal,
leader (champion) that could trans- Remenyi and Sherwood-Smith (1998) external, and customers. Constituents
form self-interest into a corporate mis- have proposed an ”Active Benefits from all of these groups should be
sion. However, as the literature Realization” approach that is based on considered when conducting a stake-
suggests and Bass (1985, pp. 37 and a contingency philosophy, under holder analysis. Such an analysis also
154) identifies, transformational lead- which an evolutionary approach is makes imminent sense, as the key to
ers often appear in a time of crisis. At used to remain focused on the delivery project success is meeting stakehold-
one point, the project was at risk of of end benefits. Stakeholders play a ers’ expectations.
stalling due to the lack of expected central co-evolutionary and participa- Similarly, the JIMS project adopt-
funds in the next fiscal year. This was tive role through the development of ed a vision but it was seldom referred
compounded by the withdrawal of the system. All stakeholders focus on to except to justify funding or when
sponsorship by one key and largely end benefits and not just the technolo- renewed energy was required in a time
uncommitted stakeholder, but trans- gy that will get them there. Similarly, as of crisis. As many writers on leadership
formational leaders did appear in the proposed by Ulfelder (2001) when agree, vision must be continuously
remaining core agencies. Self-interest managing a system with a broad scope, maintained foremost in the minds of
was put aside for an aggressive rollout it may be beneficial to apply a micro- project team members and active
schedule. Sacrifices, cooperation and project concept and allow the concept stakeholders. All too often, the project
creativity were the call of the day. A of the larger undertaking to take shape vision is disregarded and attention is
renewed focus on the project vision over time. With either proposed misplaced on the business require-
inspired all people in the core agencies approaches and regardless of their ments or technical specifications of the
to get JIMS implemented to the extent champions’ intent, there is likely the system. Similarly, the end benefits are
possible, given the remaining time- risk of losing clarity in the operational- forgotten and all of the attention is
frame. Thus, at this point of inflection, ization of objectives and the approach focused on the technology. For any
both motivational and inspirational may be somewhat susceptible to vision project to succeed, this cannot be
vision characteristics were revived, and creep. allowed to happen.
the vision became credible again. Lastly, the leadership of the cen- It is also unlikely that passion will
The idea of developing an inte- tral project manager was often grow unless there is a strong, core
grated case tracking system was as believed to be driven by technology project team. The JIMS project saw lit-
much a high-risk endeavor as it was and resource concerns, and not always tle in the way of scheduled, structured,
innovative and untried, and it the business requirements of the pro- or prepared team building. Some
involved a large number of stakehold- ject’s stakeholders. In a government cathartic team cohesion occurred as a
ers (and, hence, presented some setting, this is not an atypical behav- result of people being together and
intriguing stretch goals). The joint ior. This issue was never fully resolved, involved in a common purpose, but
vision was seemingly adopted in the but some of the others described in this fell far short of what was required.
very early stages, quite likely before the foregoing were. Generally, the The term “project team” is actually a
individual stakeholders fully under- project suffered from a lack of project misnomer for the central JIMS project
stood their business needs and before management experience and knowl- management group, as they had few
technological solutions had conceptu- edge on many fronts, but the adoption of the qualities necessary for an effec-
al specificity. The importance of the of well-documented best practices tive team as suggested by numerous
shared vision cannot be underestimat- may have addressed or prevented authors on teamwork. Katzenbach and
ed in its importance to promote proj- some of the challenges experienced in Smith (1993) noted such qualities as
ect success and bind stakeholders to a the JIMS project. problem solving, task effectiveness,
firm foundation. While there are many best prac- and maximizing the use of all mem-
A vision is inextricably linked to tices documented in the current liter- bers’ resources to achieve the team’s
the end benefits and should be clearly ature, a few examples will highlight purpose. If a larger investment has
understood at the outset of the project, the value that applying such practices been made toward team building, the
but with the foreknowledge that both may have had for the JIMS project. opportunities for the creation of a
the vision and end benefits are likely Practices such as identifying the need shared vision and mission may have
to change and evolve throughout the to conduct a stakeholder analysis increased. Similarly, team building
project life cycle. The stakeholder (Morris, 1994; Briner et al., 1996; and the dynamics of group cohesion
group highlighted in this case as being Cleland, 1999) may have alerted the would likely have made it more diffi-
problematic never took exception with central project manager as to the cult and less likely that the problemat-
the vision of JIMS, it just no longer met motivation of some project partici- ic stakeholder group would have
their specific needs. Perhaps the vision pants and created an opportunity to walked away from the project.

September 2004 Project Management Journal • 49

 Vision Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4
Characteristics Novo Nordisk Matsushita Taurus JIMS
1 Easily Yes – by all Yes – by Japanese No – by all participants, Yes – but tacitly at first;
understood employees, but different understanding of however, the vision and
No – by “foreign” employees. the core purpose by mission became later
different stakeholders. confused.

(part) (mainly) (mainly)

2 Motivational Yes – at first, many saw the Yes – by Japanese employees No – it appeared that, in No—for a crucial stakeholder
and inspirational process as intrusive and general, the lack of focus, who “paid lip service” to be
greeted it with skepticism the Japanese identity, history,
and suspicion; later the and cultural legacy was very the massive scope creep, inspired, but failed to commit
Knowledge Management strong, but and difficulties in ever resources and energy.
advantages were No – for “foreign” employees. seeing the light at the end Probably a system design
appreciated and it was of the tunnel was a very fault through failure to fully
highly supported. large negative. consider participant rewards.

(part) (mainly)

3 Credible Yes—it made sense to Yes—for older and more No—it appeared that the Yes—but one principle
employees as a sound way senior Japanese general confusion resulted stakeholder did not share the
forward. No—for younger Japanese in unrealistic expectations belief in the project beyond
and foreign employees due and ideas of what could be its own needs.
to not “walking-the-talk” achieved.

(part) (mainly) (part)

4 Working smarter, Yes—best practices Yes—best practices within No—the chaos and Yes—the concept for the
stretch goals identified and welcomed for Japan confusion accompanying an integration across the supply
widespread uptake. No—for outside Japan, due ever-widening scope did chain of information to
to the corporate dogma that stretch people, but not to do provide superior service
best practice can only come things smarter—there was delivery was recognized.
out of HQ in Japan. a lot of re-work and
abandoned work.

(part) (mainly)

Overall Rating Best practice vision A good vision for Japanese A weak and enfeebled A strong vision, but weakly
but not for outside Japan vision that failed to focus implemented at first through
the project. lack of central authority. A
strong transformational
leadership input emerged to
retrieve the situation.

Table 1. Vision characteristics from example cited in the literature

Lastly, project managers need to exemplifies a major need—it suggests judged highly successful by the remain-
have authority over their domains more attention should be paid to stake- ing core stakeholders and the sponsor-
(Briner et al., 1996). In JIMS the central holder analysis and project-leader ing government. . The system does not
project manager did not have such behavior in the promotion and adop- fully meet the anticipated functionality
authority nor did many of the core tion of a shared vision. In addition to for all stakeholders, but it was judged by
agency project managers. The central the impacts attributed to stakeholder its peer-group developers from else-
project manager was not given the struc- characteristics and project leader behav- where in the continent to have superior
ture to control or manage the core ior, we suggest that the organizational performance to other similar projects at
agency project managers or their indi- environment in which a project exists a lower cost and in a shorter develop-
vidual processes as is highly recom- also impacts project vision. However, ment and delivery time. This was
mended by (Sauer et al. 2001). This lack more investigation is recommended. believed to be due in no small part to
of clear project management authority While alternative approaches may be the vision being held together and
in a single individual may have con- required for different types of projects, maintained despite setbacks and its
tributed to the dissention of stakeholder what does seem clear is that it is in every- birth as a ”whitespace” project in which
buy-in and general project ownership. body’s interest to promote and sustain a substantial stakeholder commitment
Any project, but especially a project shared vision and to support leadership and belief in its value was initially
with multiple stakeholders who have behaviors that will encourage and placed.
diverse interests, needs to have a shared endorse this approach.
and prominent vision fostered by a rec- It should be noted, however, that Discussion and Conclusions
ognized and empowered project manag- the project (despite not fully meeting all This paper has explored the role of a
er. This case study investigation the needs of all stakeholders) was project vision as a critical success factor

50 • Project Management Journal September 2004

to project outcomes. We have investi- of an effective project vision and trans- Texas at Austin, CII Source Document
gated the concept of vision from a formational management. 102-11.
number of perspectives. We defined it We also indicated how a project Cleland, D. I. (1999). Project
as it occurs in the common dictionary vision could be developed, and Management Strategic Design and
and also refined this definition in stressed that while a charismatic leader Implementation. Singapore: McGraw-
terms of the business literature as may provide much energy and useful Hill.
vision appears as a corporate tool. We motivational impulse to the develop- Collins, J., & Porras, J. I. (1996).
then extended our discussion of this ment of an effective vision, a stake- “Building Your Company’s Vision.”
concept to apply to a project vision. holder reference group may form a Harvard Business Review. 74(5).
We identified four characteristics that a more enduring framework for vision Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L.
vision should possess: it must be development and planned deploy- (2000). Working Knowledge - How
understood; it must be motivational; it ment. This is largely due to a more Organizations Manage What They Know.
must be credible; and it must be both inclusive and more diverse set of expe- Boston, Harvard Business School
demanding and challenging. We then riences to be drawn upon in formulat- Press.
linked vision to a transformational ing both the vision itself and a Dinsmore, P. C. (1999). Winning
leadership style, arguing that as proj- deployment strategy. in Business With Enterprise Project
ects are transformations and that as Our intended contribution is to Management. New York: American
vision is an idealization of a transfor- highlight best practice in vision devel- Management Association.
mation, then transformational leader- opment and to a lesser extent, its Doz, Y. L., & Hamel, G. (1998).
ship should be evident in successful deployment. Our chosen case studies Alliance Advantage - The Art of Creating
projects. provided useful evidence for our Value Through Partnering. Boston,
We then continued to explore four analysis and the JIMS case provided an Harvard Business School Press.
case studies. The first three drawn from in-depth example for us to draw upon. Drummond, H. (1998). Riding a
the literature were chosen to provide Tiger: Some Lessons of Taurus.
one successful example, one partially References Management Decision. 36(3), 141-146.
successful example (from the organiza- Avolio, B. (1996). What’s All the Hersey, P., Blanchard, K., &
tion’s home country but not from its Karping About Down Under? Johnson, D. E. (1996). Management of
foreign subsidiaries’ point of view), Leadership research and Practice. W. Parry Organizational Behaviour. London:
and a spectacularly unsuccessful proj- K. W. South Melbourne: Pitman Prentice Hall International.
ect example. Our fourth case study was Publishing. Holden, N. J. (2002). Cross-
discussed in some detail and related to Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and Cultural Management - A Knowledge
an interesting IT project that one of the Performance Beyond Expectations, New Perspective. Harlow, UK: Pearson
authors had an intimate involvement York: Free Press. Education.
with, and deep insights and sources of Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K.
information on. Improving Organisational Effectiveness (1993). The Wisdom of Teams - Creating
In comparing and contrasting the Through Transformational Leadership. the High-Performance Organization.
three examples from the literature and London: Sage. Boston: Harvard Business School
the case study experienced by one of Bennett, J., & Jayes, S. (1995). Press.
the authors, the following observa- Trusting the Team. Reading, UK: Centre Kerzner, H. (2001). Project
tions and analysis can be made. for Strategic Studies in Construction, Management- A Systems Approach to
Table 1 provides a four-point vision The University of Reading. Planning, Scheduling, and Controlling.
characteristic appreciation that helps us Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1997). Toronto: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
to understand the important elements Leaders Strategies for Taking Charge. Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading
of a vision that contributes to its suc- New York: Harper Business. change - Why Transformation Efforts
cess. Clearly, not all elements need to Briner, W., Hastings, C., & Geddes, Fail. Harvard Business Review. 73(2),
fully active constantly for project suc- M. (1996). Project Leadership. 59-67.
cess to be an outcome; however, they Aldershot, UK: Gower. Kotter, J. P. (1998). What Leaders
should be present at some period dur- Carless, S. A., Mann, L., & Wearing, Really Do. Harvard Business Review on
ing the project’s execution and prefer- A. J. (1996). Transformational Leadership. Review H. B. Boston, MA:
ably, all present all the time. These Leadership and Teams. Leadership Harvard Business School Publishing.
categories also matched well with a research and practice. W. Parry K. W. Lenard, D. J., Bowen-James, A.,
transformational management style South Melbourne: Pitman Publishing. Thompson, M., & Anderson, L.
and, as was shown, do so in terms of the CII (1996). The Partnering (1996). Partnering - Models for
four I’s: individual consideration; intel- Process - Its Benefits, Success. Adelaide, Australia:
lectual stimulation; idealized influence; Implementation, and Measurement, Construction Industry Institute of
and inspirational motivation. Thus, we Austin, Texas, CII, Bureau of Australia.
argue for a link between development Engineering Resources, University of Lendrum, T. (1998). The Strategic

September 2004 Project Management Journal • 51

Partnering Handbook. Sydney: NC: Project Management Institute. (1993). The Goals and Methods Matrix:
McGraw-Hill. Remenyi, D., & Sherwood-Smith, Coping with Projects With Ill-defined
Maletz, M. C., & Nohira, N. M. (1998). Business Benefits from Goals and/or Methods of Achieving
(2001). “Managing in the Information Systems Through an Them. International Journal of Project
Whitespaces.” Harvard Business Review. Active Benefits Realization Management. 11(2): 93 -102.
79(2), 102-111. Programme. International Journal of Ulfelder, S. (2001). The Dirty Half-
Project Management. 16(2), 81-98. Dozen, Six Ways IT Projects Fail-and How
Morris, P. W. G. (1994). The
Sauer, C., Liu, L., & Johnston, K. You Can Avoid Them. Darwin
Management of Projects A New Model.
(2001). Where Project Managers are
London: Thomas Telford. Magazine (www.darwinmag.com), Project
Kings. Project Management Journal. 32(4),
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. Management. (June).
39-49.
(1995). The Knowledge-Creating Walker, D. H. T., & Hampson, K.
Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational
Company. Oxford, UK: Oxford D. (2002). Procurement Strategies: A
Culture and Leadership. San Francisco:
University Press. Jossey Bass. Relationship Based Approach. Oxford,
Oxford (2001). The New Oxford Schein, E. H. (1993). How can UK: Blackwell Publishing.
Dictionary of English. Oxford, UK: Organizations Learn Faster? Lessons Weick, K. E. (2001). Making Sense
Oxford University Press. from the Green Room. Sloan of the Organization. Oxford, UK:
Pinto, J. K., & Trailer, J. W. Management Review. 34(2), 85-92. Blackwell Publishers.
(1998). Leadership Skills for Project Turner, J. R. (1999). The Handbook of Zaleznik, A. (1998). Managers
Managers. Sylva, NC: Project Project-based Management: Improving the and Leaders: Are They Different?
Management Institute. Processes for Achieving Strategic Objectives. Harvard Business Review on Leadership.
PMI (1996). A Guide to the Project London: McGraw-Hill. Review H. B. Boston: Harvard Business
Management Body of Knowledge. Sylva, Turner, J. R., & Cochrane, R. A. School Publishing.

DALE CHRISTENSON is Acting Executive Director of the Leadership and Learning Centre of the Public Service
Agency for the province of British Columbia. He is currently enrolled in the Doctor of Project Management
program at RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia. His undergraduate and graduate studies at Simon Fraser
University were in the field of Criminology. He also holds a post-graduate certificate in Project Management
from Royal Roads University.

Mr. Christenson’s current areas of research interest are critical success factors of project management, strategic
alignment of projects and organizational direction, and innovative application of project management
methodologies. Mr. Christenson has been responsible for a number of information technology projects. He has
successfully applied project management methodologies to the area of program development and strategic plan
implementation.

Mr. Christenson is also a seasoned lecturer and teaches at Athabasca and Royal Roads University in various
areas of project management. He has over 20 years of lecturing experience in a wide variety of forums and
venues. Mr. Christenson is also a Project Management Professional (PMP®) certificant, through the Project
Management Institute.

DEREK WALKER is Professor of Project Management and Program Director of the Doctor of Project Management
(DPM) program at the Faculty of Business, RMIT University. He worked in various project management roles in
the UK, Canada, and Australia for 16 years before commencing his academic career in 1986. He obtained a
Master of Science from the University of Aston (Birmingham) in 1978, and a PhD in 1995 from RMIT University
(Melbourne). He has written over 100 peer-reviewed papers and book chapters. His research interests center
on innovation diffusion of information and communication technologies, knowledge management, project
management, and project procurement systems.

52 • Project Management Journal September 2004